Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LIVERPOOL HYDRAULIC POWER BILL [Lords]

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

BLYTH HARBOUR BILL [Lords]

PORT OF LONDON BILL [Lords]

Read a Second time and committed.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNITED NATIONS

Nuclear Tests

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, bearing in mind that a thermo-nuclear explosion in any part of the world can be detected by its atmospheric effects, what forms of control he intends to propose in the course of his discussions inside or outside the United Nations Disarmament Commission for the purpose of limiting or ending test explosions.

Mrs. Castle: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will publish the proposals for the limitation of hydrogen bomb tests which have been submitted to the Disarmament Sub-Committee by the United Kingdom delegate.

Mr. Beswick: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the fact that other participating Governments have stated their disarmament proposals in detail, he will inform Parliament of the British proposals put forward at the United Nations Disarmament Sub-Committee meetings.

The Minister of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. David Ormsby-Gore): As regards the detectability of tests I would

refer the hon. Member for Gorton (Mr. Zilliacus) to the announcement made at the conclusion of the Bermuda Conference and to what the Prime Minister said in the House on 1st April.
I can only repeat what I said on 3rd April. I am not yet prepared to make public what has so far transpired in the Disarmament Sub-Committee. The whole purpose of the Sub-Committee meeting in private would be frustrated if its discussions were to be made public as they take place.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the contention that hydrogen bomb tests cannot be detected by some means if they are big enough to be worth detecting is very strongly contested? Will not he reconsider this question? Will he say whether it would not be just as easy to conclude an agreement abolishing hydrogen bomb tests as an agreement for limiting hydrogen bomb tests? Will the Government please try to work for an agreement to abolish tests rather than for one merely to limit them?

Mr. Ormsbyo-Gore: We do not accept what the hon. Member said about the detectability of all tests. All that my right hon. Friend said was that, if a particular Power tried, it could make a bomb test which was not detectable at a great distance. That is all he said. With regard to the question whether we would like to have the banning of all tests, as well as the limitation of tests, that was also made perfectly clear; but the banning of all tests is a much more difficult problem and would have to take place in the context of a general disarmament agreement.

Mr. Beswick: With regard to the publication of Britain's proposals, as suggested in my Question, would the Minister of State say why it is that the other countries feel able to state beforehand what their respective positions are? While accepting the fact that discussions must be in private, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he does not think that Parliament here is entitled to know what is being said in its name?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: At a certain stage it is certainly entitled to know, but we hope to achieve some results from these discussions, and we have learned from bitter experience that if we publish exactly


what our proposals are and almost immediately they are repulsed, we then make no further progress. There is a great advantage in having these discussions confidential, and we think we are more likely to achieve results by that method.

Mr. McAdden: If my right hon. Friend has any difficulty in providing an argument in favour of the retention of these tests, will he consider publishing as a White Paper "Talking Points for Speakers", issued by the Labour Party recently, which sets out the arguments very cogently and clearly, and would be of benefit to hon. Members opposite if they read it?

Mrs. Castle: In view of the fact that the Government have promised to work for a limitation of tests separately from, and in advance of, a general disarmament convention, will not the right hon. Gentleman at any rate give an undertaking to the House that an interim report upon the discussion of this limited proposal will be put before the House as quickly as possible.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I will ask my right hon. and learned Friend to consider that.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Can the right hon. Gentleman clear up a doubt which he seemed to raise last week? In the proposals that we are putting forward, are we suggesting any limitation at all either of the number or the power of the tests to be carried out?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That would require my going into details of our proposals, and at this stage I am not prepared to do that.

Hungarian Refugees

Mr. Younger: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government are taking in response to the appeal issued to all member Governments of the United Nations by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for further assistance in the resettlement of refugees from Hungary, with special reference to the 18,000 now in Yugoslavia.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs (Mr. Ian Harvey): The appeal is under consideration, but I am not yet in a position to make any statement. As regards the admission of further refugees to this country, the position remains as stated in the Written reply given by my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary on 14th March.

Mr. Younger: Is it not the case that in recent weeks, and since the matter was considered earlier, there has been a new appeal by the United Nations High Commissioner? Is it not a fact that very few refugees have been able to leave Yugoslavia and that if they are not removed in considerable numbers before the summer season starts there will be very real danger of difficulties about their accommodation?

Mr. Harvey: Yes. We appreciate that, and we sympathise with the position of the refugees, but we must make it perfectly clear that this country is not normally a country of immigration. We have already made a considerable contribution to this problem. That is our position.

Mr. Younger: If we are not able to take them into this country, could we not make a contribution to I.C.E.M. to help to move them?

Mr. Harvey: As I have said, the appeal is under consideration, and we will look at it.

Archbishop Makarios

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make available the text of the speech of the United Kingdom representative at the United Nations indicting Archbishop Makarios.

Mr. Ian Harvey: I am not aware that the United Kingdom representative at the United Nations made any speech specifically indicting Archbishop Makarios. As Archbishop Makarios is a British subject it would not be appropriate to indict him in a legal sense in the United Nations. The speech made by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of State on 18th February this year at the General Assembly of the United Nations is contained in United Nations document No. A/C.1/PV.847 of that date, a copy of which is in the Library.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Would the Joint Under-Secretary of State suggest to the Foreign Office that it might be useful to us to have a White Paper with the whole of the Assembly debate on Cyprus available for the use of hon. Members?

Mr. Harvey: I will certainly consider that.

Suez Canal, Straits of Tiran and Gulf of Aqaba

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on the result of the representations made by Her Majesty's Government to the United Nations Organisation and the present position in respect of freedom of passage of ships of all nationalities through the Suez Canal and the Straits of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: On the Suez Canal, I have nothing to add to what the Prime Minister said on 1st April. We have made no representations to the United Nations on freedom of passage through the Straits of Tiran and the Gulf of Aqaba, but Her Majesty's Government's position was made quite clear to the General Assembly by my right hon. and gallant Friend the Minister of State on 4th March.

Mr. Janner: Dealing with the first part of the reply, will the right hon. Member say whether he is not satisfied that it is pure hypocrisy on the part of Egypt to refuse to allow Israeli ships to go through the Suez Canal, in view of the declaration of the Security Council and Article 25 of the Charter? Turning to the second part, will he do the same, or encourage doing the same, as the Americans have done—by encouraging British ships to carry oil through the Straits of Tiran in order that the position may be further established?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Replying to the first part of the supplementary question, it is certainly our case that there should be no discrimination against the shipping of any country going through the Suez Canal. Replying to the second part of the supplementary question, we have declared that we believe this to be an international waterway and that there is right of free passage for the ships of all nations through this waterway. We have stated that we will exercise that right through those Straits.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Would the Minister confirm that although Israel has apparently now established a right of passage for ships in the Gulf of Aqaba, that should in no way prejudice her right with all other countries to free passage through the Suez Canal?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That is perfectly true.

Mr. Gower: Are we making it clear that in this country we consider that it would be intolerable if Israel had to endure another long period of years in which, as has been the case, none of her ships were allowed to pass through these international waterways?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir.

Oral Answers to Questions — BAGDAD PACT

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether the United States of America has joined the Bagdad Pact Anti-Subversion Committee as well as the Military Committee; and to what extent, in return for the United States of America associating itself with British military obligations under the Bagdad Pact, he has accepted any reciprocal and similar obligation to associate the forces of this country with United States military action under the Eisenhower doctrine.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The United States Government joined the Counter-Subversion Committee of the Bagdad Pact a year ago. In regard to the second part of the Question, action under President Eisenhower's Middle East proposals is a matter for the United States' Government, and Her Majesty's Government have no obligation in this connection.

Mr. Zilliacus: I express gratification at the last part of the rely, but does the first part mean that the United States have also accepted the obligation to take military action against anything alleged to be Communist subversion by any ruler of a Middle Eastern country?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I think that that is the hon. Member's next Question.

Mr. Zilliacus: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent United States forces may now be expected to assist British forces to discharge the obligations assumed by the Government under the Bagdad Pact to put down any popular rising alleged by the ruler of a Bagdad Pact country to be Communist subversion against which he requires military assistance.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Her Majesty's Government have assumed no obligations under the Bagdad Pact to put down popular risings in Bagdad Pact countries. The hon. Member appears to be confusing the Bagdad Pact with the Warsaw Pact.

Mr. Zilliacus: Is not the confusion very easy to make, in view of the fact that on 27th February, in reply to Questions by myself and my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), the Minister of Defence definitely said that under paragraph 5 of the final communiqué of the Bagdad Pact Council of November, 1955, Her Majesty's Government considered themselves bound to take military action when asked to do so by a ruler of a Bagdad Pact country alleging that a popular rising was Communist subversion against which he needed military protection?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I do not accept what the hon. Member has said. Countering subversion does not necessarily mean taking military action. There are many other ways of countering subversion.

Mr. Zilliacus: Does it exclude military action?

Oral Answers to Questions — NILE WATERS

Mr. Brockway: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will take the earliest opportunity to propose a conference of Governments interested in the use of the Nile waters in view of the resolution adopted by the Tanganyika Legislative Council regarding adequate supplies from Lake Victoria and the need of the Sudan Government for further water to extend the Gezira scheme.

Mr. Ian Harvey: I have nothing to add to the reply which I gave to the hon. Member on 11th February.

Mr. Brockway: Is it not the case that on the previous occasion he said that the moment was not appropriate? Does not that arise from the break with Egypt? Will he speed some agreement with Egypt so that the development in the Sudan, Uganda and Tanganyika is no longer held up?

Mr. Harvey: Our East African territories have a very clear interest in this

matter. I do not think it would be inappropriate if the initiative came from one of them.

Oral Answers to Questions — NUCLEAR TESTS

Mr. Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs why he no longer proposes to seek the limitation and ending of hydrogen bomb tests apart from a comprehensive disarmament agreement.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It has never been the policy of Her Majesty's Government to abolish nuclear tests apart from a comprehensive disarmament agreement. As regards the limitation of tests, I would refer the hon. Member to what the Prime Minister said in the House on 1st April and 2nd April, and to what I have said in answer to the first Question this afternoon.

Mr. Allaun: Does not that conflict with what the former Prime Minister told us in December? Secondly, does not the Minister think that a lead from Britain, in the form of an announcement of the postponement of the Christmas Island explosions, would have a dramatic effect in breaking the vicious circle, lessening world tension and producing an atmosphere in which agreement to end this suicidal race in H-bombs might be achieved?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, Sir. It is Her Majesty's Government's case that it would not produce that result. As regards the first part of the hon. Member's supplementary question, in the debate last week the Prime Minister made it perfectly clear why the proposals put forward by Sir Anthony Eden last December were no longer practicable.

Sir T. Moore: Can my right hon. Friend say—if it is within his knowledge—whether it is the practice in the engineering industry to design and manufacture a very important and costly tool arid then refuse to test it in order to discover its efficiency?

Mr. Speaker: The Minister is not responsible for the engineering industry.

Mr. Mason: The Prime Minister said that they could not go forward with the Eden proposals because thermo-nuclear explosions cannot now be detected. Will the right hon. Gentleman explain why they cannot now be detected?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That is not what my right hon. Friend said. He did not say that no tests could be detected. All he said was that it was now possible to carry out a test which was not detectable at great range.

Mr. Younger: Does not the Minister of State think that the most important thing in this matter is that Her Majesy's Government should now be putting forward very effective proposals, particularly in view of the fact that other Powers are apparently carrying on with their explosions in the meantime? If he is not prepared to tell us anything about these proposals until it is too late to affect any of the discussions, is he aware that he is accepting a very heavy responsibility and that we shall look forward to his telling us afterwards that he has put forward something very effective?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: All lean say is that certain proposals for limitation are being put before the Sub-Committee and the right hon. Gentleman must now wait and see whether those proposals work in practice.

Mrs. Butler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what reply he has sent to the Japanese Co-operative Fishermen's Association in reply to their representations to him concerning their fears in regard to the hydrogen bomb tests at Christmas Island.

Mr. Ian Harvey: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to the hon. Member for Morpeth (Mr. Owen) on 2nd April.

Mrs. Butler: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in his reply he stated that the Japanese have been using this fishing ground only in the last three or four years, but that, in fact, they were returning to their pre-war fishing grounds which they were unable to use during the period of the occupation? Is the hon. Gentleman further aware that, as Her Majesty's Government have concluded an agreement with Japan for the import of £500,000 worth of canned tuna into this country in the coming years there is a grave danger that part of the food supply of this country may be contaminated by this radioactive fall out as well as contamination of the basic food of Japan, and will he reconsider the representations made to him?

Mr. Harvey: I have noted the hon. Lady's remarks about Japan's position in the last war. As far as the particular fishing ground is concerned, we have already given assurances about that. I do not think that the danger she envisages is real.

Oral Answers to Questions — EGYPT

Gaza Strip

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what is now the policy of Her Majesty's Government in regard to the re-entry of the Egyptian Army into the Gaza Strip.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Her Majesty's Government's policy remains as stated by my right hon. and learned Friend on 14th March.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Will my right hon. Friend ask his right hon. Friend to encourage the United Nations to keep their Force in the Gaza Strip as long as possible, with a view to trying to reach a final settlement of the Arab refugee problem in the Gaza Strip?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Yes, Sir. It is certainly Her Majesty's Government's policy to see that the United Nations Emergency Force remains in the Gaza Strip for as long as it is needed—and that is for some considerable time.

Suez Canal

Mr. A. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will now make a statement on the consultations Her Majesty's Government have been having with other Governments about the recent memorandum of the Egyptian Government relating to the Suez Canal.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The Egyptian document in question was a draft, and it has not been published officially. We have expressed our views on this draft to the United States, French and other interested Governments. The United States Ambassador in Cairo is discussing it with the Egyptian Government, and until these discussions have reached a conclusion I am not in a position to make a statement.

Mr. Henderson: Do the Government agree with the view of the United Nations Secretary-General that there seems to be


no serious conflict between the Egyptian Government's memorandum and the six principles? Can the Minister give any indication whether there is likely to be a conference with the Government of Egypt on the matter in the near future?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Of course, by saying that there is nothing in conflict with the Resolution of the Security Council, it does not follow that this draft memorandum covered all the points in that Resolution. That is what discussions are now taking place about. I think it might be fair to say that the points in the memorandum do not run contrary, but they do not go far enough. As regards a conference with the Egyptians on the matter, I am afraid that I have no statement to make.

Mr. Benn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what action Her Majesty's Government will take as a signatory of the 1888 Convention to ensure the passage of Israeli shipping through the Suez Canal.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The aim of Her Majesty's Government is that Egypt should fully honour the 1888 Convention and also the six principles of the Security Council Resolution of 13th October, the first of which provides for free and open transit for all without discrimination.

Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware of the fact that the Answer he has given made no reference to the 1951 Resolution demanding that Israel had the right to send her ships through is extremely sinister? Is he prepared to take more action than the Government have done since 1951 to see that that Resolution is implemented?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: We certainly think that the Egyptians should abide also by the 1951 Resolution. I would point out that the Israeli Government have been particularly cautious in their remarks about the use of the Suez Canal, and it would be just as well at the present time if we were equally cautious.

Mr. P. Williams: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Israelis intend, probably in the very near future, to send a ship through as a test case? Is he also aware that it is reported in the Press that Cairo Radio is threatening to destroy any Israeli ship that tries to go through the Canal? In such circumstances, what

action would Her Majesty's Government take?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That is a completely hypothetical question which I cannot answer.

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is yet in a position to state the terms under which British ships will pass through the Suez Canal.

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he has any further statement to make on the future of the Suez Canal and the advice given to British ships over the payment of dues.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have at present nothing to add to what the Prime Minister and my right hon. and learned Friend said during the debate on the Bermuda talks on 1st April.

Mr. Hynd: Is not the right hon. Gentleman very unhappy at having to give so many negative replies today? Is he aware that, according to the New York Herald Tribune, the number of shipowners who have asked to be transferred to the Liberian flag has increased by 200 per cent, since the Canal was reopened, including a large number of British shipowners? Shipowners, being good Conservatives, believe in private profit being paramount, but is there not a danger that more ships will be transferred from the Red Ensign to the flags of Liberia, Panama, Costa Rica and other countries?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That sort of consideration is very much in our mind, and we are doing all we possibly can to get a reasonable settlement of the Suez Canal problem.

Mr. Grimond: Surely the Minister can give some direction in the near future to British shipping or it will be heavily handicapped. Are we to understand from the right hon. Gentleman's previous answer that the Government are prepared to have a settlement on the basis of the six principles that we could have had in October?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As I have already said, we propose to negotiate on the six principles. There is no evidence that we could have got agreement with the Egyptian Government on those six principles If the hon. Gentleman will read


the reply of Dr. Fawzi, the Egyptian Foreign Minister, he will see that he made certain conditional demands with regard to the six principles of the Resolution of 13th October.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: What responsibility, if any, have the signatories of the Constantinople Convention of 1888 for making effective the provision of the Convention that the ships of all nations would be free to go through the Suez Canal in peace or war?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Any settlement has also to be on the basis of the 1888 Convention. That is one of the things that are being discussed with the Egyptian Government at the present time.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: Is it not a fact that a letter of the Secretary-General of the United Nations on 24th October last set out a settlement virtually agreed with Egypt which would have safeguarded British interests, and that Egypt proposed a meeting in Geneva on 29th October?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The right hon. Gentleman is incorrect. The Egyptian Government did not accept entirely the Secretary-General's letter of 24th October.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Was not the only reservation they made a small point about police action, which was very doubtful on its merits?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It was a point on arbitration, which was of very great importance.

Mr. Noel-Baker: Have not the Egyptian Government, in their latest proposals, accepted full arbitration on all points, including reference to the International Court, of any dispute about the 1888 Convention?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am not prepared to discuss what is in the Egyptian memorandum, but I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that in many respects it is totally unacceptable.

Mr. Shinwell: Would the October position also have safeguarded the passage of Israeli ships?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That is a hypothetical question.

Hon. Members: Oh.

British Subjects (Trial)

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he has concerning the progress of the trial of the four British subjects on charges of espionage in the Egyptian criminal court.

Mr. Ian Harvey: The case has been heard by the Court of Committal, which sent all the accused for trial by the assize court. The trial is expected to open on 13th April.

Lieut.-Colonel Cordeaux: Would my hon. Friend agree that the decision of the Egyptian authorities to time these arrests in August last year was to enable them to use these men as a bargaining counter in the Suez Canal dispute and that the very long delay which occurred before they were brought to trial and the present delay in the conduct of the trial are due to the same reason? If we can get no satisfaction from the representations of the Swiss authorities, will he consider raising this matter in the United Nations, because these unfortunate men have now been in custody, and, what is more, in Egyptian custody, for over seven months?

Mr. Harvey: I sympathise very much indeed with the points which my hon. and gallant Friend has made. This trial is about to proceed, and I think it would be wiser to await events before taking any further action. Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that the defence of the four British subjects is in the hands of competent lawyers.

Mr. Shinwell: Does the hon. Member appreciate that the trial which is about to take place in Egyptian territory cannot be regarded as sub judice? Have the Government made any attempt to ascertain whether these four men have been implicated in espionage in any form? What is the Government's opinion about these men? Are they regarded as innocent? Ought we not to make a public declaration to that effect?

Mr. Harvey: These men are in the hands of the Egyptians at the present time.

Mr. Shinwell: We know that.

Mr. Harvey: We have to consider what is in their best interests. I think the right hon. Gentleman would be wise to await


the proceedings which are about to take place. We will take what action appears to be most appropriate.

Mr. Nicholson: Are the Government under any illusion as to the strength of British feeling about this in all sections throughout the country? I hope they are not.

Mr. Harvey: This Government are under no illusions about anything.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE WITH CHINA AND SOVIET BLOC

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will advise the Chinese Government that, in future, the restrictions on exports from the United Kingdom to China will not be more severe than those on exports to other countries of the Eastern bloc.

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs to what extent Her Majesty's Government are now considering bringing the China embargo into line with that applicable to the Soviet bloc.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have nothing to add to the statements made by the Prime Minister and my right honourable and learned Friend on this subject on 1st April.

Mr. Rankin: Is the Minister not aware that since then his Government have issued a paper called the Economic Survey, and that dealing with prospects for the United Kingdom, on page 37. it says that:
exports must be increased more rapidly than in recent years?
Is it the case that, as stated by the Sunday Express and other newspapers yesterday, the Government propose to meet this need by expanding trade with China and ceasing to treat her as if we were at war with her?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I am not prepared to comment upon what has been put in some of the national newspapers. I think that my right hon. and learned Friend made the position very clear. We have stated our view, and I think that it is one which is held in all parts of the House. We have stated it very frankly to the United States Government. As my right hon. and learned Friend said, we

have only to wait a little longer to get a reply.

Sir L. Plummer: At the time when we are supplying the Soviet Union with the largest tyre factory in Europe for the purpose of its industrialisation, is it not ridiculous to refuse to supply China with the goods that she needs for her industrialisation?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I think there must be some discrimination as between one type of goods and another. I think it has been accepted by both sides of the House that certain goods should be banned for export to the Soviet Union. I do not imagine that even hon. Members opposite would be in favour of sending our latest type of jet aircraft to the Soviet Union.

Mr. Shinwell: Am I to understand from a previous Answer given by the right hon. Gentleman about the United States that our policy in respect to trade with China is now dictated by the United States? Is that the position?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That is not the position. In trying to maintain a common front on the controls which everybody regards as necessary for trading with the Soviet bloc and with China, we have consultations with our allies. My right hon. and learned Friend had discussions on this very matter at Bermuda and was assured that we should get a reply in the very near future. I think that we must now wait until we gel that reply.

Mr. Dugdale: Will the right hon. Gentleman state quite plainly why it is more dangerous to export arms, or any goods, to China than it is to export them to Russia?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That is one of the considerations which is in our minds.

Viscount Hinchingbrooke: Am I to understand from my right hon. Friend's earlier reply that, if the reply of the United States is unsatisfactory, Her Majesty's Government will give the matter further consideration with a view to unilateral action?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I cannot go further now than to say that, when we revive the reply, we shall give it further consideration.

Sir Leslie Plummer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what steps Her Majesty's Government are taking to reduce the restrictive effects of the embargo on Great Britain's trade with China, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and the countries of Eastern Europe.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The controls on trade with the Soviet Union and certain East European countries are kept under continuous review. Her Majesty's Government do not contemplate any special action as regards the Soviet bloc controls. As to the China trade controls, I would refer the hon. Member to the answer which I have just given in reply to the hon. Member for Govan (Mr. Rankin).

Sir L. Plummer: We are not getting anywhere very fast on this question of reducing the embargoes. Is it not time that the Government decided to "go it" alone if the successful attempts which are now being made to hamstring our trade with those countries continue?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I have already repeated several times that my right hon. and learned Friend hopes to be able to make a statement on this subject in the very near future.

Sir L. Plummer: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what additional items have been brought within the scope of the exceptions procedure as a result of the constant review of the controls on trade with China.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: As the then Minister of State informed the hon. Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Mr. Swingler) on 14th May, 1956, decisions as to what cases and what items can be licensed under the extended use of the exceptions procedure must be taken on the merits of the individual exports concerned. The scope of the procedures depends largely on the merits of the individual case.

Sir L. Plummer: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that no advantages are being given to our competitors through the exceptions procedure? For example, he said a moment ago that all countries would be treated alike. Is he aware that one runs greater risk of being knocked down by an American motor car in Peking than one does in London?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That is very unlikely. I can tell the House that we make considerable use of the exceptions procedure. I have already indicated that we did more trade with China last year than did France and only a little less than did Western Germany.

Oral Answers to Questions — PARIS CONSULTATIVE GROUP

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if, in view of the widespread disquiet in this country, he will agree to submit a full report to the House on the operations of the Paris Consultative Group and its organs.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The Paris Consultative Group is an advisory body consisting of representatives of various countries who consult together with a view to harmonising and co-ordinating the security export controls. The proceedings are confidential, but it has no executive functions and the controls are operated by decisions of the member Governments. As the Group and its committees are primarily a forum in which the views of Governments on problems with a strategic content can be frankly expressed so that individual Governments may take their decisions in full knowledge of the views of their friends and allies, it would not be appropriate for their proceedings to be made public.

Mr. Rankin: Is this organisation not really a sort of modern Star Chamber of Government officials meeting in Paris and carrying on their activities in such a way that neither Parliament nor any other public agency gets to know what is going on? Is it not the case that in our trading relationships with China and other countries we follow the guidance offered by this secret committee?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, we listen to the views expressed in the committee, but we are not bound by the decisions of the committee. The committee has no executive functions, and, if the hon. Gentleman wants a full statement on exactly how this organisation works, I would refer him to the statement made by the then Minister of State, Lord Reading, on 10th November, 1953.

Mr. Swingler: As the Minister has stated that we wish to maintain a common front with our allies on this subject,


would he tell the House how many of the Governments which send representatives to the Paris Consultative Group are now in favour of relaxing control on trade with China and how many are in favour of retaining it?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No, Sir.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what information he normally supplies to the Paris Consultative Group concerning the activities of British firms trading with China; and if he will now withhold such information pending the reaching of international agreement on removal of restrictions on trade with China.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: No information concerning British firms as such is supplied to the Consultative Group. In accordance with the procedures of that body, we supply information on a confidential basis, about particular exports. I do not believe that the withholding of such information would be likely to facilitate the reaching of international agreement on the China trade controls.

Mr. Swingler: Is not the Minister of State aware that there is now considerable difference both of policy and practice between the Powers who are represented on the Paris Consultative Group? Has not the Foreign Office any information at all about what the Belgians, French and Western Germans are doing with regard to trade with China? Does not the Foreign Office know that the practice of these countries is different, and, further, is it not unfair to British firms that this information should be revealed?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: My information is that we are adopting the same practices as those other countries in using the exceptions procedure. We also have information which shows that, contrary to what some hon. Members opposite think, we have had an expanding export trade with China. We sent more exports to China last year than France and only a little less than Western Germany.

Mr. Younger: In view of the fact that for many weeks past—indeed, for many months past—Ministers have been indicating quite clearly in their Answers that they would like to see considerable changes but that nevertheless no progress seems to be made in this Committee, does

not the right hon. Gentleman think it is unreasonable any longer to ask the country to take this matter on trust, and ought there not quite early to be a re-statement of the position?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I think that my right hon. Friend's statement last week showed very clearly that before long—I think he said in the very near future—there would be a re-statement of the position.

Mr. Swingler: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs how many meetings of the China Committee of the Paris Consultative Group have been held since 10th April, 1956.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Since 10th April, 1956, there have been forty-seven meetings of the China Committee.

Mr. Swingler: On 10th April, 1956, the Minister of State for Foreign Affairs said that the Paris Consultative Group would shortly be convened to consider the removal of restrictions on trade with China. The right hon. Gentleman has now informed the House that there have been forty-seven meetings of the group and no progress at all has been made. What is the Foreign Office going to do?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It proposes to make a statement on the matter in the very near future.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANAL USERS' ASSOCIATION

Mr. Benn: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will sponsor Israel as a member of the Canal Users' Association.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The declaration of 21st September, providing for the establishment of the Suez Canal Users' Association, referred to criteria for new members which would be laid down by the Association in due course. This action has not yet been taken by the Association. The question of the admission of any particular country therefore does not arise.

Mr. Benn: Is the right hon. Gentleman satisfied that his Answer will not convey any meaning at any rate to the House, since the Association was established by people who had previously not been members of the Association? Would he please look at this matter again? Would


he not agree that membership of the Suez Canal Users' Association by Israel would be the first step towards the resumption of negotiations with Egypt to guarantee the passage of her ships through the Canal?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: We are always prepared to look at this matter again, but in fact the Association consists of the major users of the Canal by tonnage and trade, and, of course, Israel is not a major user.

Mr. Langford-Holt: Is my right hon. Friend aware that, ever since the Resolution years ago, the United Nations has retreated from the principle of free passage to the ships of all nations? If further retreat from this principle goes on, is that not the surest way of starting up conflict in this area?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend.

Mr. Younger: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that Israel would be a major user, in relation to the size of her economy, if only she were allowed by the Egyptians to use the Canal?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: If the Gulf of Aqaba is open, I do not think that Israel will be a major user.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRAWLER FLEETS (INCIDENTS)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will make a statement about the causes and the results of the incidents last week involving British trawlers in the direction of Faroese fishing grounds; and what he is doing to resolve disputes which have arisen and may arise in consequence of these incidents.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Complaints about certain incidents which are alleged to have taken place recently between British trawlers and Faroese line fishing vessels are being investigated. Any further action which may be necessary will be taken when the results of this investigation are known.

Mr. Hughes: The Minister has not said anything about steps he has taken to preserve friendly relations between these two trawler fleets to prevent incidents of this kind in the future. What steps has he taken in that regard?

Mr. Harvey: It is usual to await the result of investigations before we take any steps. The normal practice is clearly laid down in these matters.

Oral Answers to Questions — CYPRUS

North Atlantic Treaty Organisation

Mr. Patrick Maitland: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will state the precise terms on which the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation has offered its good offices for conciliation between Turkey, Greece, and Great Britain.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Not at present. The communication from the Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation is a confidential document. But, as my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies stated on 20th March, it is in accordance with the Resolution on the Peaceful Settlement of Disputes which was adopted by the North Atlantic Council last December, whereby the Secretary-General was empowered to offer his good offices.

Mr. Maitland: Is my right hon. Friend aware that until the public can be assured that this good offices intervention has nothing whatever to do with the internal affairs of Cyprus, there will be great uneasiness throughout the country?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The proposal was simply to appoint a conciliator or conciliators. There is no question of N.A.T.O. arbitrating on this matter and I therefore do not think that my hon. Friend's fears are very well founded.

Mr. Fell: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will give an assurance that Her Majesty's Government will resist proposals for admitting the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation to any share of responsibility for the Administration of Cyprus.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Colonies has already given an answer on this matter on 20th and 28th March.

Mr. Fell: Is my right hon. Friend aware that the answers already given are a little confusing? I should be most grateful if he could say categorically that N.A.T.O. will have nothing to do with the internal administration of Cyprus.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The internal administration of Cyprus is a matter entirely for my right hon. Friend, but I can say that the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation's offer was simply to send a conciliator round between all the parties concerned and to give advice to Her Majesty's Government. There is no question of arbitration by the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Callaghan: Does not the Minister realise that his position will be very much stronger if the Government will start negotiations and discussions with the representatives of the Cypriot people about their own future?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That is a matter entirely for my right hon. Friend.

Mr. Callaghan: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs what discussions are taking place in the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation about Cyprus.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Discussions at the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation are confidential and I cannot disclose information about them, but I can tell the hon. Member that Her Majesty's Government do not accept that the door is yet closed to conciliation through the good offices of the Secretary-General of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation.

Mr. Callaghan: Has Greece refused this offer of conciliation and, if so, what is to be the nature of the conciliation? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if it goes on like this much longer, people will regard this device as something to stall off the real issue, namely, the discussion of the future of the island with the people of Cyprus?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: It is not designed to stall off any issue. As the hon. Member knows perfectly well, this initiative by N.A.T.O. was warmly welcomed by him. We are hoping that the Greek Government, in view of recent events, will reconsider their attitude to this offer.

Mr. Patrick Maitland: Can my right hon. Friend assure us that there will be no discussions with these foreign Powers about the internal administration of Cyprus?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: That is quite another question, but I can assure my hon. Friend of that.

Mr. J. Griffiths: While awaiting the N.A.T.O. initiative, do the Government stand by the Resolution of the United Nations on Cyprus for which they voted?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: Certainly.

Mr. Speaker: Mr. Fletcher.

Mr. Griffiths: May I ask, as that Resolution called for discussion with the Cypriot people—I am sorry, I thought that you called me, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: I did not observe the right hon. Gentleman rise a second time, but I will call him now.

Mr. Griffiths: Since that Resolution called for a discussion with the Cypriot people, what are the Government doing about that part of the Resolution?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: The Resolution calls for talks in an atmosphere of peace and the absence of terrorism, and those conditions have to be fulfilled before talks can reasonably take place.

Mr. Callaghan: Further to that last answer from the right hon. Gentleman, may I ask whether it is not the case that there has been only one murder—[HON. MEMBERS: "Only one?"]—only one murder since the offer of a truce by E.O.K.A. and that that murder has never been laid officially at the door of E.O.K.A.? In view of the fact that this was a month ago, how much longer has the island to lie without any administration at all before conditions are satisfied in which the Government will be ready to enter into talks?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: These are questions for my right hon. and learned Friend, but I think it would be a great exaggeration to say that peaceful conditions now obtain in the island of Cyprus.

Mr. Fell: On a point of Order, Mr. Speaker. May I ask your guidance. Three times last week when I tried to put supplementary questions—and I rose to my feet every time from the beginning of the supplementary questions and answers—a Privy Councillor or a Member on the Opposition Front Bench jumped up and was called. This afternoon, once again the next Question was called and the right hon. Gentleman got up and was called and I was not, and he was followed by another hon. Member on the Opposition


Front Bench and I again was not called. Has one any protection at all as a back bencher against the very determined use of their prerogative by Privy Councillors and leading Members of the Opposition?

Mr. Speaker: I am afraid not at present. Mr. Fletcher, Question No. 36.

Mr. Fell: Further to that point of order. With due respect to you Mr. Speaker, I am asking a question on a point of order, about which I may be wrong.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member asked me whether a back bench Member has any form of protection against what the hon. Gentleman considered to be an undue number of interventions by Privy Councillors and I had to tell him, "No, not at the moment"—unless the House otherwise orders.

Mr. Fell: I am very sorry, Mr. Speaker, I did not hear your answer. I am most grateful to you.

Mr. Callaghan: Can you indicate to me, Mr. Speaker, what right the hon. Member for Yarmouth (Mr. Fell) has to ask supplementary questions on a Question which he has not put down?

Mr. Speaker: He has the right to ask supplementary questions—

Hon. Members: The same as you.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, including the hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), frequently ask supplementary questions on Questions which they have not put down.

Mr. Callaghan: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. On many occasions when you have not called me, I have never protested about it.

Mr. Speaker: I think that is quite true.

Mr. Fell: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Now may we have Mr. Fletcher's Question?

Mr. Fell: Further to that point of order. In the first place, since I have been in this House I have never asked a facetious supplementary question. Secondly, all the questions on which I tried to ask supplementary questions last week were, in fact, related to Questions I had put down on the Order

Paper, first, to the Prime Minister and, in the second place, to the Foreign Secretary, which were not reached. Therefore, I think it a little unfair to make the suggestions which have been made.

Mr. Fletcher: May I invoke your protection, Mr. Speaker, against the attempt of the hon. Member to prevent me from putting my Question?

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Radio Athens (Broadcasts)

Mr. P. Williams: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether Radio Athens is still broadcasting Enosis propaganda to the people of Cyprus.

Mr. Ian Harvey: Yes, Sir. I am circulating in the OFFICIAL REPORT extracts from the monitoring reports of some recent broadcasts.

Mr. Williams: Can my hon. Friend say whether these show any reduction in their hostility to British policy or not?

Mr. Harvey: I regret to say, no, Sir.

Mr. Williams: If not, if the Greek Government wish friendly relations in this matter, is it not about time that these broadcasts were stopped?

Mr. Harvey: I think we can all sympathise with that point.

The following are extracts from Athens Radio commentaries since the United Nations debate on Cyprus.

Gestapo? What was the Gestapo? It was a service of saintly men compared to the cannibal and barbarous service organised by Albion's field-marshal in Cyprus.…

(Commentary on 24th February)

"The Greek nation has been deeply moved by the death of the E.O.K.A. deputy leader. Greeks, wherever they may be on the earth, will be moved, will take heart, and will strengthen their determination and will to see Cyprus free before they stop fighting.… Afxendiou has fallen in unequal fight: one against a thousand. … He carried out Dighenis' recent order: the first among the best and the bravest, he proved himself worthy of his military commander, and he gave himself as a holocaust …for a life worth living.

"To all Greeks, to all his comrades, Afxendiou in dying leaves this command: I have sacrificed my life because the struggle demanded it; but you, you must carry on the fight to the bitter end, relentlessly, until victory; victory is ours."

(Commentary on 6th March)

What we do know—and nobody can have any doubts about it—is that the new machinations will not influence either the Cypriot people's morale or the final outcome of their struggle. The struggle will be continued with the same stubbornness and enthusiasm, and victory will be attained.

(Commentary on 23rd March)

That the prisoner of the Seychelles and his colleagues are at long last being liberated is of course a happy and extremely pleasing fact. But no one can claim that the British game has suddenly been changed to a sincere one. No one can yet describe the new assumptions of the London rulers as 'fair play'.

(Commentary on 29th March)

He [Harding] is now waging war aimlessly, without any specific opponent, his slogan the dissolution and destruction of E.O.K.A. And E.O.K.A. is celebrating the second anniversary of its heroic activity by once more showing its strength, its mighty popular basis, its entire unanimity with the Greeks of Cyprus. No member has given in to Harding, not a single national fighter has asked to be allowed to desert his bloodstained island. All the E.O.K.A. fighters, from the leader, Dighenis, to the most humble helper, are on the qui vive. Their weapons in their hands, they do not yield; they obey the orders of their leaders."…

(Commentary on 1st April)

Oral Answers to Questions — ANGLO-ICELANDIC RELATIONS

Mr. Vane: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he is aware of the widespread interest in Iceland in English language and literature and desire for closer contact with British institutions; and what steps he is taking to help meet these wishes and so cement Anglo-Icelandic friendship.

Dr. King: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs if he will extend the work of the British Council to Iceland.

Mr. Ian Harvey: My right hon. and learned Friend has learned with pleasure of the desire in Iceland for closer Anglo-Icelandic cultural relations. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, in the course of his review of the Government's Oversea Information Services, is examining the British Council's future plans. Proposals for promoting Anglo-Icelandic cultural relations are included in those plans. The hon. Member for Itchen (Dr. King) and my hon. Friend the Member for Westmorland (Mr. Vane) will not, of course, expect me to anticipate the review of the Chancellor of the Duchy.

Mr. Vane: While thanking my hon. Friend for that reply, may I ask him whether he is aware that there is: considerable misgiving in Iceland among people who are friendly to us about the increasing propaganda and increasing amount of money being spent by Russia in the face of an ever-smaller sum being spent by ourselves? Will he bear in mind the importance of Iceland and realise that it is of much greater use to us than its population and remote situation might lead one to believe?

Mr. Harvey: I am obliged to my hon. Friend for outlining those points. We will certainly bear the matter in mind.

Oral Answers to Questions — MIDDLE EAST (OIL PIELINES)

Mr. Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he will make a statement on negotiations which Her Majesty's Government have had with Middle East States on the construction and use of oil pipelines through their territories.

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: There have been no negotiations between Her Majesty's Government and Middle Eastern Governments on this subject. However, it is obvious that no decision to construct pipelines in the Middle East can be taken without consultation with the Governments of the countries through whir-h such lines would pass.

Mr. Janner: Will the Minister consider entering into negotiations with a friendly State, Israel, with a view to seeing that a pipeline shall be available in Israel in the case of any unfriendliness starting between other countries and our country? Does he not think that that is the best and most effective way of ensuring a regular supply of oil, and particularly in case of emergency?

Mr. Ormsby-Gore: These are matters which, first of all, have a commercial basis. It is, first of all, for the oil companies concerned to enter into negotiations, but at a later stage Her Majesty's Government will be very ready to enter into talks with all the Governments concerned.

Oral Answers to Questions — LEGAL AID

Mr. E. Fletcher: asked the Attorney-General if he will now initiate legislation to modify the rules under which contributions are assessed on persons obtaining certificates of legal aid.

The Attorney-General (Sir Reginald Manningham-Buller): No.

Mr. Fletcher: In view of that most unsatisfactory answer, may I—

Mr. Lipton: Raise it on the Adjournment—

Mr. Fletcher: —ask the Attorney-General whether he is convinced that the operation—

Mr. Speaker: Order. Did the hon. Gentleman say that he was going to raise the matter on the Adjournment?

Mr. Fletcher: No, I did not say that: I do not want to dispossess myself.
May I ask the Attorney-General whether he is not convinced that the present operation of these rules produces a large number of cases of grave hardship for persons applying for legal aid certificates? Does not the right hon. and learned Gentleman feel that it is high time the rules were reconsidered in the interests of people who are entitled to benefit under this legal aid procedure?

The Attorney-General: The number of persons who refused legal aid on the terms offered last year increased by 1 per cent., and that was all.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS APPEALS TRIBUNAL (APPEALS)

Mr. Willey: asked the Attorney General the number of appeals, successful and unsuccessful, respectively, heard by the Pensions Appeals Tribunal.

The Attorney-General: The numbers of successful and unsuccessful appeals are, respectively, 26,362 and 80,492 in entitlement cases and 16,834 and 32,800 in assessment cases.

Oral Answers to Questions — PENSIONS AND NATIONAL INSURANCE

War Pensions (Deputation)

Mr. H. Hynd: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what reply he gave to the deputation from the

British Legion and other organisations when they asked for a basic pension of 90s. per week.

The Minister of Pensions and National Insurance (Mr. John Boyd-Carpenter): I undertook to consider the deputation's views as regards both the basic rate of war pension and certain other matters in consultation with my colleagues.

Mr. Hynd: The deputation was on 20th March. It is now 8th April. Can the right hon. Gentleman give us any news about the result of his consideration?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: As the hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well, when responsible and important bodies raise matters of major policy a certain amount of time is always taken for consideration.

Retirement Pensions

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what would be the estimated cost annually of increasing retirement pensions by £1 per per week, 10s. per week and 5s. per week for persons aged 80 years and more.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The estimated cost of an increase of £1 a week for pensioners over 80 would be £30 million a year immediately rising to £62 million a year by 1979–80. The cost of increases of 10s. a week and 5s. a week would be, respectively, half and a quarter of the above figures.

Mr. Gower: asked the Minister of Pensions and National Insurance what would be the estimated annual cost of increasing retirement pensions for persons aged 75 years and more, by £1 per week, 10s. per week and 5s. per week, respectively.

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: The estimated cost of an increase of £1 a week for pensioners over 75 would be £73 million a year immediately, rising to £142 million a year by 1979–80. The cost of increases of 10s. a week and 5s. a week would be respectively half and a quarter of the above figures.

Mr. Gower: In view of the fact that these older retirement pensioners are less able and in most cases are unable to supplement their pensions as younger pensioners are, and as their needs often increase with age, would my right hon. Friend agree that these figures may be


worthy of some consideration in the future?

Mr. Boyd-Carpenter: I fully understand the point of view which my hon. Friend has in mind, but he must also appreciate that even these figures are very substantial.

COMPLAINT OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Mr. Speaker, I desire to raise with you a question of Privilege. I want, first, to thank you for sparing time this morning to peruse some of the essential letters concerned in this case.
A few weeks ago I was approached by a business colleague who called my attention to a certain business practice by the London Electricity Board which, in his opinion, was a matter of some public concern and possibly called for investigation. I looked into the matter very carefully and I became convinced that this was, indeed, a matter which should be looked at from the outside and that the case which was presented to me by my friend was a strong one.
I do not want to go into the details of the case, because it would take some time, but I should tell the House, in essence, what it is. It concerned the peculiar method, contrary to normal commercial practice, by which the London Electricity Board disposed of its old and useless cables, a method quite different from that employed by all the other electricity boards in the country, the Post Office and London Transport. It seemed to me that this method which the Board insisted on operating meant that the cables were sold at prices well below what they should and could fetch, and, therefore, a substantial amount of public money was being lost every year.
I did what I think every other Member would do in these circumstances. I conveyed these facts, together with my views of the situation, to the Minister responsible, the Paymaster-General, suggesting that the matter should be investigated, and rather urgently, because the Board's policy on this matter was to be decided very shortly. I should add that I did not accuse the Board or any of its officers of dishonesty or of any lack of integrity I should also add that I declared in my letter a personal interest which, in point of fact, is a very remote one indeed.
I received a reply from the Paymaster-General in which he said that, in his opinion, the matter was one of administration which concerned the Board and not himself, and he went on to say:
On the other hand, I share your concern that it should not be felt that any public Board is acting unwisely or improvidently, and I have, therefore, arranged for my officials to bring your views to the attention of the Board Chairman as a matter of urgency.
I was then invited by the Chairman of the Board to discuss the matter with him, which I did, together with one or two people who understood the technicalities of this trade, which I do not.
Later, I had a letter from him in which he explained the Board's policy, and, naturally, defended it, and asked me to withdraw the criticisms I had made in my letter to the Paymaster-General. I replied that I was not prepared to withdraw those criticisms, because I wan more convinced than ever, after the interview and after receiving his letter, that they were justified.
I then had a letter asking me again to withdraw those criticisms on threat of legal action if I did not. That was followed by a solicitor's letter which emphasised the threat, and, finally, on Friday, my solicitors received a letter from the solicitors of the Board saying that they were issuing a writ for libel against me this week. This was in respect not of any public statement I had made, but in respect of the criticisms, suggestions and comments which I had made in a letter to the Minister responsible for that Board.
It seems to me that this raises a grave matter affecting the rights and duties of Members. I thought that the action of the Paymaster-General in this respect was perfectly proper, and because I was satisfied with it I did not do what I would be perfectly entitled to do—raise the matter in the House either by Question or on the Adjournment. I did not do that. Now, it is quite irrelevant whether my views are right or wrong. They nay be wrong. I think they are right. It is also irrelevant whether I would be protected in any action brought against me in the courts by a plea of qualified Privilege.
The question, it seems to me, which does arise is whether this threatened action by the London Electricity Board does not strike at the heart of Parliamentary Privilege. If a Member has good


reason to believe that harm is being done to a constituent or to the public interest generally by a wrongful act, or by faulty administration on the part of a Government Department, or a nationalised industry, he must surely have the unfettered right, unimpeded by any threat of a possible court action, of bringing the matter to the attention of Parliament or the Minister concerned where he thinks that such action is appropriate or desirable.
If he does not have that right, Mr. Speaker, then a very serious situation arises. Members would then be forced to ventilate any allegation of improper action which they desire investigated on the Floor of the House where, of course, full Parliamentary Privilege prevails, and that means that they would have to state it in public. That is an action which, of course, most hon. Members would not want to take. Therefore, it seems to me obvious that, if Parliamentary Privilege does not do so now, it should cover not only statements by Members in the House, but statements made by Members to Ministers in correspondence concerning the Government Departments or the public boards for which they are responsible.
It is because this threatened issue of a writ against me raises such an important question concerning the rights and duties of Members of this House, that I submit to you that it should be referred to the Committee of Privileges for its consideration.

Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) was good enough to give me notice of this matter this morning, and I have had an opportunity of considering it. It is not, of course, for me to say whether a breach of Privilege has occurred or not. That is a question for the House. My duty is to decide whether the right hon. Gentleman has, in fact, made out a prima facie case such as would entitle me to give his complaint priority over the Orders of the Day. I think that the answer to that question is in the affirmative, and I am prepared to accept a Motion on the matter.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I beg to move,
That the matter of the complaint be referred to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Godfrey Nicholson: I rise, Mr. Speaker, for the very simple purpose, first, to assert the right to have this Motion debated, and, secondly, to thank you for your statement that a prima facie case of breach of Privilege has been made out.
I think that it has been widely believed by hon. Members of the House that the fact that you say that a matter is a prima facie case of breach of Privilege deprives the House of any possibility of choice as to whether it should go to the Committee of Privileges or not. I wish to thank you for having made the position abundantly clear today. I am sure that this is a suitable case, and I am anxious that the House should fully assert its full responsibility of sending it to the Committee of Privileges.

Mr. Speaker: I have always endeavoured to make it clear that my duty at this stage is purely procedural. I have to decide whether to give the matter priority. That is all I have to decide.

Mr. F. J. Bellenger: On the Motion moved by the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the House, I have nothing to say. [Laughter.] I think I am quite correct in what I have just said. I could have raised what I want to raise as a point of order.
What I want to ask you, Sir, is what reaction you have to the suggestion of my right hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. G. R. Strauss) which, I take it, will not be discussed by the Committee of Privileges, as to whether Members are privileged not, as we know they are at the moment, in statements in this House, but in statements that they make in letters to the Minister? Is there any Ruling that you could give on that?

Mr. Speaker: Certainly not. Perhaps that matter will be considered by the Committee of Privileges. It is for the House to define these matters, not for me.

Question put and agreed to.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Proceedings on Government Business exempted, at this day's Sitting, from the provisions of Standing Order No. 1 (Sittings of the House).—[Mr. R. A. Butler.]

Orders of the Day — EXPORT GUARANTEES [MONEY]

Resolution reported,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to amend the Export Guarantees Acts, 1949 to 1952, it is expedient to authorise—

(a) any increase attributable to the provisions of that Act—

(i) raising to two hundred and fifty million pounds the limit of one hundred and fifty million pounds imposed by subsection (2) of section two of the Export Guarantees Act, 1949, as amended, in respect of guarantees under that section,
(ii) extending the power of the Board of Trade under the said section two, so far as that power is exercisable for the purpose of rendering economic assistance to countries outside the United Kingdom, by authorising the making of arrangements for facilitating payments under contracts with persons carrying on business in the United Kingdom or companies directly or indirectly controlled by such persons;
in the sums which, under section three or section four of the said Act of 1949 are to be or may be paid out of moneys provided by Parliament, charged on or issued out of the Consolidated Fund, raised by borrowing or paid into the Exchequer; and
(b) the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of sums representing the excess of

(i) interest payable into the Exchequer under section three of the said Act of 1949 on sums paid into the Acquisition of Guaranteed Securities Fund for the purpose of acquiring securities created under arrangements made before the first day of April, nineteen hundred and fifty-six; over
(ii) interest collected on such securities.

Resolution agreed to.

EXPORT GUARANTEES BILL

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

Clause 1.—(RAISING OF LIMIT ON GUARANTEES UNDER S. 2 OF EXPORT GUARANTEES ACT, 1949.)

3.42 p.m.

Mr. Douglas Jay: I beg to move, in page 1, line 10, to leave out "and fifty".
My hon. Friends and I put down this Amendment so that we may question the Minister of State, Board of Trade, a little further on why he selected the figure of £250 million as the new minimum for

special guarantees under the Bill. Although it may appear so by the Amendment, we are not seeking to say that the limit of £250 million ought to be reduced to £200 million. Indeed, we welcome, in general, the extension of public enterprise which the Government are now making under the Bill. We always rejoice when the Government act, for once, in the country's interests and not merely out of their own political theories.
On this particular issue of the limit, we have not, we believe, had a very full explanation from the Minister of why he chose the £250 million. We presume that he had a fairly substantial reason and did not take a guess out of his head. He spoke of increased export business likely with Middle Eastern countries which would require these special guarantees, and also of increasing dollar exports, of which we are all glad to hear. When we pressed him for an intelligible reason for raising the limit from £150 million to £250 million and not, perhaps, to a figure larger than £250 million, he told us merely that this was a realistic and proper estimate. We did not feel that that was quite good enough as an explanation to the House as to why it was being asked to authorise what is, in effect, the expenditure of public money.
The Minister will agree, I think, that although, in general, these are liabilities and not, in the long term, an outright expenditure of public money, nevertheless, under this particular Section of the 1949 Act, it is possible to make advances out of the Consolidated Fund on quite a large scale. Therefore, the House is, in a sense anyway, being asked to authorise the issue of public money. The reason for putting down our Amendment is not to propose that it should be less or, indeed, more than £250 million. We should like to have a little more explanation of the figure from the Minister.

The Minister of State, the Board of Trade (Mr. Derek Walker-Smith): I will gladly give the Committee the reasons which we have for proposing the increase to £250 million for the maximum limit of liability for these special guarantees under Section 2 of the Export Guarantees Act, 1949. I would think that there are really three considerations which are relevant in deciding the maximum limit of liability


which it is appropriate to ask the House to approve.
The first, of course, is the relationship of the existing limit to existing commitments. The second is future expectation. The third, which is, though not perhaps in the same category of importance as the other two, one for which hon. Members will have some regard, is the convenience of the House; that is to say, to try to fix a reasonable limit which will not necessitate over-frequent applications to Parliament on the point. I will just deal briefly with, at any rate, the two major matters, because the last really speaks for itself.
In regard to the relationship of the existing limit to the existing commitments, we are in this position now. As I told the House on Second Reading, there is a total liability, taking the firm commitments and the contingent liabilities, of £148 million. The actual limit under Section 2 is £150 million, and the proposed limit is £250 million. To get some idea of whether that was a reasonable and moderate rate of increase, I have compared it with what was done in 1949, when the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) assumed some responsibility for the conduct of the then Bill through the House.
In 1949, the liabilities were £8 million: the actual statutory limit was £60 million, and the proposed limit was £100 million under that Bill. The ratio of the limit to liabilities taken by right hon. Gentlemen opposite was no less than 12½. If one applied that ratio to our present commitments, one would ask for a proposed limit of 12½ times £148 million, which is, if my arithmetic be correct, no less than £1,800 million. If, on the other hand, it is more appropriate to take only the firm commitments and disregard the contingent liabilities, the figure would be 12½ times £72 million, which is £900 million. Thus, it is, in fact, a very moderate figure for which I am now asking the Committee. The right hon. Gentleman's Amendment would, if carried—though he has indicated that he does not propose that it should be carried—reduce it to only £200 million.
To have a limit of £200 million would imply a ratio of only 4 to 3 in relation to the sum of the existing commitments

and contingent liabilities. I have done the same exercise in relation to that ratio applied to the 1949 position. The result is that if one applied a ratio of 4 to 3—the ratio which the right hon. Gentleman, by his Amendment, appears to think appropriate today—to the position for which he had responsibility in 1949, he ought to have asked the Committee for a maximum limit of liability of only £11 million. In fact, as he knows, he asked for £100 million, a figure which, if his arguments on this Amendment were right, would be excessive to the extent of no less than 1,000 per cent.
I do not think, therefore, that both the Amendment and what was done in the 1949 Act can be right. It is, of course, possible that they may both be wrong—

Mr. Jay: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman's modesty imply that the Government are much more pessimistic about future export prospects today than the former Government were in 1949? Must not this estimate presumably rest a little on one's expectations of future exports, and not just on this arithmetic?

Mr. Walker-Smith: No. I am coming to the question of future expectation. The right hon. Gentleman will recall it was the second of the two major considerations which I suggested were relevant in deciding upon the appropriate figure to commend to the Committee.
The right hon. Gentleman asks for a substantial reason why this figure has been chosen. I have had the curiosity to see what was the reason, substantial or otherwise, given by the right hon. Gentleman when he replied to the debate in 1949. I find that he said:
Exporting is not merely a vital business for this country, but it is an exceedingly risky one. That is why we are extending the maximum liability …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 1716.]
Of course, that is an unexceptionable statement; but I do not think that even the right hon. Gentleman would go so far as to suggest that it is either strikingly original or closely particularised. I am judging the right hon. Gentleman by the standards which he has set himself. That very broad generalisation was the sole reason why he found it necessary to give to the House the figure which he then asked the House to approve.
An additional reason was given by the right hon. Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) in Committee, when he referred to the
higher proportion of our exports … going to these countries in the shape of capital equipment
and said that, therefore,
we need a much bigger maximum liability…"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th February, 1949; Vol. 461, c. 259.]
The right hon. Member for Huyton was quite right; but, as the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay) will know, precisely the same consideration, as he will have seen from the Economic Survey, applies to our exports at the present time in that there is a growing proportion of capital equipment.
Therefore, I am giving to the Committee, first, the two reasons which were given to the right hon. Gentleman as his two sole reasons—the general importance of exports, which was his contribution, and the special significance of capital equipment, which was the contribution made by his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton. We have both those two reasons, which both still apply in undiminished effect today as they did then.
In addition, however, I gave two more specific and definite reasons on Second Reading. Those two reasons, which appear in column 404 of the OFFICIAL REPORT of 20th March, 1957, were the possibility that we might in the near future wish to prepare the way for full cover in the Middle East by using the extended operation of Section 2 of the 1949 Act as a sort of bridging operation: and, secondly, the dollar market orders, to which I referred in the following paragraph. There are, therefore, four reasons in the field of future expectation as against the two which the right hon. Gentleman thought it was sufficient for the House to have in 1949.
I hope that the Committee will conclude that by every test, both these two basic tests and the third possibly less important test of the convenience of the House, we are obviously justified in proposing this increase and, indeed, are compelled to do so in the interests of the export trade. For the right hon. Gentleman to ask for any reduction in it, and, indeed, to ask us to particularise the

reasons for it, is illogical when compared with the attitude taken in 1949. I hope that the Committee will agree that we have hit upon an appropriate figure after mature reflection and after having taken appropriate account of all the relevant considerations in this context.

Mr. Jay: I assure the right hon. and learned Gentleman that we are not attacking his figure. We are merely trying to understand it. If he is resting himself on the arguments which we used in 1949, and as the figure on those arguments is, as he himself said, so modest, is he quite satisfied that the limit which he is putting forward is not perhaps too modest?

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am not resting myself solely on those arguments. As I have explained, I have taken certain other considerations also into account. It might be that in the course of years we would look back and say that this figure turned out to be too modest an estimate—I would not altogether exclude that possibility; but the best assessment at which I have been able to arrive, on the information and with the advice available to me, and taking account not only of the present position but also our future expectations, is that this is the correct figure to ask the Committee to approve at the present time.

Amendment negatived.

Mr. Eric Fletcher: I beg to move, in page 1, line 11, at the end to add:
(2) In subsection (1) of the said section two there shall be added at the end the words "but such arrangements shall not make it a condition of granting a guarantee to an exporter that he shall cover the whole of the risks involved in any particular transaction".

The Chairman: I think that the next Amendment in the name of the hon. Member, in page 1, line 11, at the end to add:
(2) In subsection (1) of the said section two there shall be added at the end the words "but such arrangements shall not make it a condition of granting a guarantee to an exporter that he shall cover the risks involved in all his transactions with a particular overseas market".
might be discussed at the same time.

Mr. Fletcher: They were deliberately put down as separate Amendments, Sir Charles. I thought that each Amendment raised a question of considerable


importance and that they involved totally different points. If you think that it is convenient that they should be discussed together, I would not demur, but we might want to divide on both of them.

The Chairman: Provided that they are both called. I will, however, call them separately, but they can be discussed together.

Mr. Fletcher: I am quite prepared to advocate them together, but I gather that I may reserve my right to divide on each Amendment separately. It is possible that I may have a satisfactory answer from the Minister on one of them, but not on the other.

The Chairman: I will certainly call the second Amendment to enable a Division to be taken, if that is the hon. Member's desire.

Mr. Fletcher: On that footing, Sir Charles, I will try to stress the arguments in support of the two Amendments. They raise two separate points and I will deal with them separately. I attach considerable importance, and, I think, British exporters in general attach considerable importance, to each of them separately.
The object of the first Amendment is to read into Section 2 of the Export Guarantees Act, 1949, certain conditions under which the Export Credits Guarantee Department should issue its policies. I am considerably fortified in the suggestions I am making to the Committee by certain proposals which were made by the President of the Board of Trade in 1949. It may be recalled by some Members of the Committee that on Second Reading I referred to the right hon. Gentleman's speech in 1949. I have subsequently received quite a volume of corespondence from persons who are interested in this subject.
4.0 p.m.
These Amendments are not proposed in any captious spirit. I am not attempting to criticise the work of this Department, for which I have the greatest admiration, but I am hoping to put forward some constructive suggestions following the lines which the present President of the Board of Trade, speaking in 1949 as a member of the Opposition, as he then was, has the credit for having first suggested in this Chamber.
Those who are familiar with the working of the Export Credits Guarantee Department will appreciate that, with all its merits, it has for a long period suffered in the eyes of the commercial and mercantile community from a measure of rigidity which, over the years, has been criticised in quarters interested in the subject. It is not often we have an opportunity in this Chamber of dealing with the activities of this Department. Indeed, this is the first opportunity we have had for several years. Therefore, I make no apology for drawing to the attention of the Committee what I regard as certain very serious limitations and inconveniences in, and, I think, blemishes upon, its operations, for which the President of the Board of Trade must accept responsibility.
I am disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman is not here today himself. I am disappointed because he has devolved upon the Minister of State, Board of Trade, for whom, of course, I have the greatest respect, the responsibility of dealing with this subject. I am disappointed because the President of the Board of Trade, who, as a back bencher in opposition, showed, I thought, a great deal of intelligence—I will not comment on what I think of him as a Minister—in 1949 made some very constructive suggestions, and I think it is important that the Committee should know what has been done about them.
The first of the two Amendments being considered together has as its object the amendment of Section 2 (1) of the principal Act of 1949 by writing into it an obligation on the Department, in making its arrangements for giving export credits, not to
make it a condition of granting a guarantee to an exporter that he shall cover the whole of the risks involved in any particular transaction.
I do not think that I could possibly call as a witness in support of that proposition anyone more distinguished and persuasive than the President of the Board of Trade himself. Speaking on this very subject, on 2nd February, 1949, he said:
How are we going to improve the system of guarantees? We want something rather more flexible. When the Department started off, it began rather simply and on rather narrow lines, but today there are at least two directions in which the service could be improved. Hon. Members will know that in the majority of commercial transactions, if not in


all, the exporter must underwrite with the Department all the risks. He has to take out a comprehensive policy covering the solvency of his debtor, the risk of war, the risk that a foreign country may put on exchange control, the risk that there may be some change in the import policy. All the risks must be insured against together.
This is what the President, as he now is, went on to suggest, and I agree with him:
The time has come"—
and he was speaking in 1949; I am speaking in 1957, and, therefore, with a fortiori force, compared with his of eight years ago, and I say that the time is overdue—
for the Department to allow the insurer to select his risk. For instance, anyone exporting to South America today—say to the Argentine—would obviously want to insure against a sudden shutting down of the transfer of Argentine money into sterling. On the other hand, the buyer in the Argentine may be a man whose solvency is not in question at all. Why should the trader have to take out a policy which covers a risk which does not interest him? Supposing he is exporting to Malaya, he may say, 'I want to cover the risk of some Communist bandit destroying the goods on arrival.' That may be the only risk he wants to insure when exporting to Malaya.
In parenthesis, I would remark that we can substitute Ruritania or any other country we want for the examples given in 1949.
To go on with the quotation:
That may be the only risk he wants to ensure when exporting to Malaya. Would it not assist British trade and the whole purpose of the system of guarantees to refine a little on this aspect of the business and allow the exporter a wider choice in selecting the risk which he wishes to cover?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 2nd February, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 1708–9.]
Moreover, the argument that the right hon. Gentleman was putting forward was supported and extended by the present Parliamentary Secretary to the Board of Trade, who—

Mr. Jay: Has gone.

Mr. Fletcher: He has not been here. Anyhow, he has not been heard committing any great indiscretions here today.
What both he and the President thought true in 1949 is even truer in 1957, because in 1949 the competitive power of British exporters was much stronger than it is today. In those days we were living in what was called a sellers' market. They were the post-war years when British exporters had considerable advantages.

Today, as the Minister of State knows, the position has changed, changed for the worse for British exporters. They are now having to compete with resurgent exporters in Germany and Japan, to say nothing of competitors in Holland and Belgium and elsewhere. Today, the work of the Export Credits Guarantee Department is more vital. It is its métier to assist British exporters in their competition with exporters in other countries.
As their problems of competition with concerns overseas become more acute the price they have to pay for insurance becomes more important. They are saying to themselves, and, in particular, they are saying to the Department, "Why should we have to pay an insurance rate for covering a whole series of risks when what we want to have to pay and would like to have to pay is merely the rate to insure us against the particular risk that we want to insure against?"
That is what is happening in other countries. If they are forced by Government policy to incur expenditure which is needless, it places them at a commercial disadvantage as compared with their competitors overseas. Therefore, this position has become more acute in 1957 than it was in 1949. This applies to exporters of all kinds, whether of raw materials, from abroad or produced here, or manufactured goods. It does not matter which.
I want to quote the observation of a group of people who are concerned in this. I have had a letter from people in a concern in which I have no interest at all. In some respects, I may have occasion to criticise it. These are the motor manufacturers for whom, in a great many other respects, this island is very concerned to see that they are not placed at a disadvantage. They say that they would like more flexibility and that competition is very keen, as we know it is, in selling British tractors and motor cars overseas. They say that it would help them if there were an alternative exchange cover so that they could cover, if they wanted to, the political and exchange risks only, and so that they did not have to cover the insolvency risks if they did not wish to do so.
The same is true of those who, in competition with the Belgian, Dutch and Scandinavian exporters, try to secure that great entrepôt trade in textiles for


British dealers in commodities obtained from South America and elsewhere. What is the answer to it? Why not have this flexibility? This is a Government service designed to encourage, aid and protect British exporters. I hope that we shall hear this afternoon from the Minister that he is prepared now to lay down a departure from what has been the policy of the Department for the last ten years and that the President of the Board of Trade will now permit this Department to adopt that greater measure of flexibility for which, as a back bencher, he was such an advocate eight years ago.
I do not particularly mind whether this is written into the Bill or not. If we have an assurance from the Minister that the necessary directives will be given to this Department to enable the purposes for which I am arguing to be adopted, I shall be satisfied Otherwise, because I believe that this matter is so important, I should hope that my hon. Friends would press it to a Division.
I hope that we shall hear from the Minister exactly what plans he has for this Department for the policy of guarantees in the immediate future. I am not being critical. I hope that I am trying to be constructive. I am, for example, quite aware of the fact that, as recently as 11th March, the Comptroller General of the Export Credits Guarantee Department sent round a circular to the interested parties, giving them some advance information about the new guarantee that is to come into operation as from 1st April. It indicated that under that new guarantee, which includes higher percentages of cover against loss and against risk, hitherto not covered, they will have certain options in place of their existing "V" or "V (S)" policies.
4.15 p.m.
I appreciate it and give the Minister and his Department full credit for the fact that, as this letter of 11th March says, the Department, and the chambers of commerce, all of whom are vitally interested in this matter, are proposing to hold meetings in London and in the principal industrial centres to explain the broad outline of the new guarantee. I raise the matter because I think it of the greatest public interest that the Minister should tell us some of the details, so that the public may know these matters which

are to be told confidentially, or not confidentially, to exporters in these meetings in London and the principal industrial centres.

Mr. Walker-Smith: Would the hon. Member help me by stating under which of his Amendments I should be in order to enter this wider field?

Mr. Fletcher: I should be the last to trespass on your province, Sir Charles, in indicating how the Minister would be in order. I am quite content to keep myself in order which, as you know, I have sometimes the greatest difficulty in doing, though, so far, I have not had any difficulty this afternoon.
I now pass to the second Amendment with which you, Sir Charles, have invited me to deal compositely with the one with which I have been dealing up to now. It is totally distinct. I am hoping that the Minister will accept both, though, of course, I must proceed in my argument on the assumption that he may not accept both but may accept one or the other.
The second Amendment is still directed to the same theme of greater flexibility for this Department, but it is slightly different. I now suggest that the Department should remove itself from its present rigidity in insisting that all risks should be covered. At present, the Department makes it a condition of granting a guarantee to an exporter that he should cover the risks involved in every transaction into which he is minded to enter with a particular country. Why should not the exporter choose to say, "I should like to cover myself against this transaction, but I do not particularly want to incur insurance in respect of every other transaction"?
I should like to give an illustration. As you know. Sir Charles, you are perfectly free to take out any kind of insurance you want, whether you are a householder or a multi-householder. Whatever the interest you want to insure, if you are fortunate enough to possess three houses, you can insure one house against fire and burglary and you do not have to insured the other two. Under the Bill, the exporter is told, "You cannot insure this particular transaction unless you insure every transaction you want to enter into with this country," I have never understood why that should be the case.
Here again, I rely on the advocacy of the present President of the Board of Trade who, on 2nd February, 1949, said that another improvement he wanted to suggest in the working of the Department was this. The right hon. Gentleman said:
In he past the Department has advised, if not insisted upon, an exporter covering with them the whole of his business in a certain market.
I there interposed that the right hon. Gentleman was being unduly reticent because, as I understood, the Department not merely advises but insists upon that, requires it and fixes it as a condition. It was against that rigidity that the President of the Board of Trade, as he now is, was campaigning.
The right hon. Gentleman went on to say:
Supposing that a man is exporting to Egypt …
In the conditions of today Egypt may not be a particularly good example to quote. It might be better to quote the case of Iraq, Saudi Arabia or the Lebanon. The right hon. Gentleman continued:
They say, 'You must cover all your Egyptian business'. I wonder whether there should not be a certain amount of relaxation in that respect. The exporter should be allowed lo take out policies in respect of certain parts of his transactions—those which he considers peculiarly risky—and if there are some he does not consider so risky, it might be reasonable if he did not have to spend money to insure them."—[OFFICIAL REPORT. 2nd February, 1949; Vol. 460, c. 1709.]
I am not one to pay undue compliments to Ministers of this Government, but that seems common sense. It is supported voluminously by what the export community is today saying.
It is an unhappy fact that they do not have many opportunities of stressing these matters because the activities of this Department, admirable as they are, are very rarely ventilated and discussed in this Committee and, when they are, exporters like to have their views put forward. They stress the fact that competition is becoming more and more difficult. To take again the case of motor manufacturers, they urge that the stipulation that manufacturers must cover their whole export credit business if E.C.G.D. is to cover short-term insurances, should be waived. They believe that there should

be more elasticity of markets and customers allowed to E.C.G.D. That is what I advocate.
The Minister of State knows that I put these Amendments down because we had a discussion of this matter. We had a debate as recently as 20th March. I give the Minister full credit. He was very anxious that this question should be considered. To do him justice, he would be the last person to wish the Committee stage of the Bill to go through without discussion. Naturally, he was anxious to know what sort of Amendments he might have to meet in Committee. In view of that, these Amendments have been on the Notice Paper for the last ten days or so. I have been trying to consider what possible argument there could be against them, supported as they are by his colleagues, the President and the Parliamentary Secretary.
I want the Minister to tell us what he conceives to be the functions of this Department. Is it designed chiefly to make the greatest possible amount of money for the Revenue, or is it designed to give the greatest possible amount of encouragement and benefit to British exporters in their efforts to compete with international competitors? The Department does very well. It makes a very considerable profit every year. Surely it cannot be argued that on grounds of economy it is desired to resist these Amendments. Surely it cannot be argued that the chief object of the Department is to penalise exporters in order to produce a little extra Revenue. Whatever Government have been an power, that has never been put forward as the primary objective of this Department.
I hope that today we shall hear that, in consonance with what the colleagues of the Minister were urging eight years ago—I must admit, unsuccessfully—the Government are now prepared, wher they have the opportunity, to stimulate still further the possibilities of giving the mercantile community maximum flexibility and the fullest possible advantages in competing with international competitors.

Mr. Walker-Smith: By your direction, Sir Charles, we are discussing these two Amendments together. The hon. Member for Islington, East (Mr. E. Fletcher) has not been grudging in his explanation of their effect. Turning to the first of the two Amendments, the intended effect, I


understand, is to compel the Export Credit Guarantees Department to split—or, at any rate, to consent to the splitting when asked—of the so-called political risk from the so-called commercial risk in the special guarantees.
I should say this about the drafting. The hon. Member has said that he did not care whether his Amendments were written into the Bill or not. At the time I thought that was rather an unusual confession coming from an hon. Member moving an Amendment, but it is a fact that the drafting is clearly defective. I have had the pleasure of listening to the hon. Member for the last two Sessions on at least three technical and complicated Bills for which I have had some responsibility. He knows that I normally do not take drafting points, but he claims a certain expertise in these matters and perhaps it would be proper to point out that his drafting in this case is defective, more particularly as the Amendment refers to
the whole of the risks involved.
I take it that it would include fire risks and other risks with which the Export Credit Guarantees Department is not concerned in its insurance policies.
4.30 p.m.
Similarly, the other Amendment is not wholly satisfactory in its drafting, though it is not open to such major difficulties as the first. However, I assume that what the hon. Gentleman really wants is that we should discuss the principles rather than the precise effects of his Amendments.
The first Amendment raises a point which the hon. Gentleman rightly says is from time to time, though less frequently now, raised by outside interests. However, if he will reflect for a moment on the basic principles here at issue, I think he will realise why the Department follows the course of conduct that it does. The basic appropriate insurance principle involved is simply a combination of the wide spread of risk with a high turnover. That basic principle is applied in the standard E.C.G.D. guarantee by giving cover against both the so-called commercial risks—the risks that the buyer will become insolvent or will not pay—and the so-called political risks—transfer or exchange restrictions, cancellation of import licences, and the like. It is the application of that basic principle on which the present low premium rates are based.
By his Amendment, the hon. Gentleman advocates that for that should be substituted the principle of selectivity at the option of the exporter. The selection of risks against the Department as envisaged by his Amendment would involve a separate assessment of each risk instead of, as now, consideration of the entire field of risk. The result would in a short time be the raising rather than the reducing of premium rates.
The hon. Gentleman looks puzzled. Therefore, I will ask him, if he does not find the quotation offensive:
Why peer into the crystal when we can read the book?
I have been ascertaining the experience of the Department in this matter over the course of years, and if the hon. Gentleman will listen patiently I think that he will be convinced by the voice of history.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I find the quotation offensive, because it seems to me to be completely irrelevant. I fail to understand how it can be more expensive to insure against few risks than to insure against many risks.

Mr. Walker-Smith: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me, that is what I am about to explain to him.
If we look at the history of the matter, we find that before 1939 the Export Credits Guarantee Department gave insolvency cover only, which is what the hon. Gentleman now asks should be done, as it were, at the unilateral option of the exporter. That being so, it is very relevant to compare the rates charged in those days for the one risk of insolvency, which is what the hon. Gentleman wants, with the rates charged today to provide cover against both types of risk.
Before 1939 the premium rate varied between 12s. 6d. and 25s. per cent, and the percentage of guarantee was 75 per cent. Now the premium rate is down to 9s. 3d. per cent, and the percentage of guarantee is up to 85 per cent, in the case of insolvency and 90 per cent, in the case of the political risk.
That is what has happened. The hon. Gentleman wonders how it is possible for that to happen. The answer is simple. As I have sought to explain, it is by the application of the basic insurance principle of wide turnover and the spread of risk. The reduction in the premiums, I


think the hon. Gentleman will accept it—could not have been brought about except by observance of the basic principle so that the good and the bad risks could be averaged out. The omission of the insolvency risk might result immediately in a reduction in rates, although it would be a negligible reduction, but eventually, by its effect on the spread of risk and turnover, it would almost certainly involve an increase.

Mr. Fletcher: Do I gather that the right hon. and learned Gentleman is now suggesting that the President of the Board of Trade was talking nonsense in 1949?

Mr. Walker-Smith: No; the President of the Board of Trade was not talking nonsense in 1949. I was proposing to deal with the attitude of my right hon. Friend at a convenient moment so I will deal with it now.
The hon. Gentleman will observe from the passages in the OFFICIAL REPORT, of 1949 which he has cited that my right hon. Friend put the possibility both of the split of the risks which is the subject of this Amendment, and the split of the market, which is the subject of the other Amendment, in a temperate, constructive and more or less interrogatory way. The difference arises from the fact that time has answered the interrogatory approach of my right hon. Friend in the negative. [Laughter.] The hon. Gentleman presumes to laugh. The standard criticism that he and his hon. Friends seek to make of my party is that it does not learn from experience.
What has happened in this case? My right hon. Friend is content to accept the verdict of time over the past eight years. It is the hon. Gentleman who is a diehard in the matter. It is he who refuses to face the facts about what has happened in the last eight years. It is he who is blind to experience and now seeks to put into a positive and prohibitive form what my right hon. Friend put forward in 1949 only as a suggestion.

Mr. Jay: Can the right hon. and learned Gentleman allay our anxieties by assuring us that he has consulted the President of the Board of Trade and that the President, who had such strong views, agrees that time has answered his question?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The decisions which I announce to the Committee arc the collective decisions of the Government; the phraseology is my own.
I do not ask the hon. Gentleman to accept what I have to say. I ask him to accept it from his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson) who. in a different context, paid tribute to the approach and attitude of my right hon. Friend. I see that the hon. Member shakes his head and looks puzzled. I have searched the record, and there is no evidence that he took any part at all in the proceedings on the 1949 Measure.

Mr. Ede: Why should he have done so?

Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman asks why his hon. Friend should have done so. The hon. Gentleman was busy about his duties in the House at that time. I note that in February, 1949, his Parliamentary interventions ranged from the marking of fish to the deportation of Sydney Stanley. Since the hon. Gentleman raises the point about my right hon. Friend, I would ask him to tell the Committee what fascination those subjects had for him at that time which the export guarantees Measure at that time did not have. Will he also tell the Committee to what we owe his sudden interest in this subject after it has lain dormant for eight years. If he will not tell the Committee, I might suggest an answer to him. If he has an answer, I shall be glad to give way.

Mr. Fletcher: I was just as interested in the subject in 1949 as I am today. If the right hon. and learned Gentleman will read debates on other export guarantees Measures, he will find that I took part in them. What he appears to have overlooked is that since then the volume of criticism about the working of the Department, in the view of his right hon. Friend, has grown far bigger than it was then.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I would agree that the matter was not debated again until 1951, and then again in 1952, both limes on very small points. If the hon. Gentleman was more interested in the small points raised in the 1951 and 1952 Bills than he was by the whole general principle raised by the 1949 Bill, the Committee will see whether or not it finds it characteristic of the hon. Gentleman.
On his second point, the hon. Gentleman is quite wrong. I concede that there certainly are some who would ask to have a split policy, and that there are some who, under the terms of the second Amendment, would like to isolate the transactions in a particular market. Of course there are, but the fact is that as the work of the Department gets better known and, as its business gets bigger, the volume of representations on this point gets less; so the hon. Gentleman is wrong in his supposition that criticism is growing among the exporting public.
4.45 p.m.
If I may say a word or two on the matter raised by the second Amendment, I would point out that the general practice of the Department is to follow what is called the "whole turnover" policies for consumer goods business; that is to say, to cover all risks on all markets to which the policy holder exports. That is, in effect, an application of the principle to which I have already referred—the basic insurance principle of the spread of risk—and it was introduced, as a matter of historical fact, as a result of a recommendation of the Niemeyer Committee which sat in 1929, and recommended that the scheme should operate on a broad commercial basis.
On the question of the special guarantees, with which the hon. Gentleman's Amendment is concerned, the Department does not, in fact, insist on the "whole turnover" policy; that is to say, it does not insist that the business in all markets be covered under these special guarantees. It is true that it does insist on the other principle—that all transactions in the market insured should be covered—and that is simply in accordance with the basic principle of achieving the maximum spread of risk within the markets covered.
There are certain other tangible advantages which flow from that—reduced rates of premium, with which I have already dealt; the spread of cover to a wider field of exporters, particularly of smaller exporters; the development of facilities: extended risk-taking; and continuous stable cover without violent fluctuations in rates and conditions. These advantages come from this "whole turnover" and spread of risk policy, and this Amendment would prevent the Department from applying this policy. It would reduce the spread of risk and would diminish the ability of the Department to average risks.
I say to the Committee that it will be a retrograde step to seek to write these provisions into the Act now. I would add that my right hon. Friend was quite correct in raising these matters in the interrogatory way in 1949, but the passage of time has proved the policy I have explained. The hon. Gentleman's Amendment takes no account of it, and I therefore invite the Committee to reject it.

Mr. E. Fletcher: I am profoundly disappointed with what the Minister of State has said. I think it is very significant that he has been left to make this reply and that the President of the Board of Trade has not come here to deal with the matter. I think that that is treating the Committee with scant respect.
The President of the Board of Trade obviously took great personal interest in this matter. He made a very long and obviously considered speech in 1949, and I thought that it was a very reasonable speech. It is very regrettable that he has not come here today, either to tell the Committee that he has changed his mind—and I do not believe that he has changed his mind—or to explain why this Amendment should not be conceded.
The Minister of State did not really deal with any of the points, particularly those bearing on the second Amendment, that I put to him. He did not attempt to deal with the most serious aspect of this matter, namely, the effect which this rigidity has upon the competitive power of British exporters. He tried to argue that if there were more flexibility, the premiums would increase, but he cannot really, to be logical, assume that the premium for insuring against some risks must be greater than the premium for insuring against the totality of risks.
Granted that the average risk for the exporter may be less, if the exporter has to insure for every transaction it must be manifest as a matter of logic that if there were more flexibility, and if the exporter chose to insure against more risks, or in respect of some transactions but not all transactions with a particular country, there would be some reduction in the premium that they would charge.
If that occurred, it would increase their competitive ability, and these Amendments—and I want to press the Minister on this—are put down in the interests of


the British export trade. Although there may be some administrative inconvenience to the Department, and although, proportionately, the premium may be higher than it is if averaged out, it still must follow that if the exporter is given an option of insuring merely against the risks against which he wants to protect himself, he will, in effect, be saving in his insurance cover.
When one bears in mind that these policies often cover transactions involving very large sums, and, therefore, the premiums are often very considerable, and, therefore, the margins are matters of importance, surely the only consideration which should operate in the Minister's mind is not that of administrative convenience, not the question of finding out what is the cheapest average rate, if various conditions are imposed on exporters, but what are the maximum incentives and encouragements that should be given to British exporters to try to compete in overseas markets with international competitors.
It does not seem to me that the Minister has attempted to deal with that question at all. He said, and I do not accept it, that the volume of criticism was less than it had been. That is not my conviction at all. It is true that it is many years since we had an opportunity to ventilate this matter in the House. That is one of the reasons why we are determined to press it at this stage, because this is a very material factor. I am profoundly disappointed with the Minister's reply.

Amendment negatived.

Amendment proposed: In line 11, at end add:
(2) In subsection (1) of the said section two there shall be added at the end the words" but such arrangements shall not make it a condition of granting a guarantee to an exporter that he shall cover the risks involved in all his transactions with a particular overseas market".—[Mr. E. Fletcher.]

Amendment negatived.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Clause stand part of the Bill.

Mr. E. Fletcher: Before we part with the Clause there are certain questions which I should like to ask the Minister. One of the most important questions that arises is the extent to which the Department is prepared to give financial help to manufacturers who wish to carry out

capital development abroad and to have the opportunities of competing in foreign markets for capital goods export orders.
As the Minister is aware, the Department's recent brochure entitled "Guarantees to Banks" has introduced a very noticeable change in the procedure of the Department, and has made provision whereby, when a major capital goods export order is placed in the United Kingdom, the Department will be prepared to consider entering into a direct contract of insurance with the bank which is to provide the finance. It is very commendable that under this new departure the Department will now be prepared to give a guarantee to the bank in respect of up to 85 per cent, of the credit to be given to the overseas buyer of the capital goods concerned.

The Deputy-Chairman (Sir Gordon Touche): I am having a little difficulty in relating the hon. Member's remarks to the Clause. I think that the remarks which he is making should perhaps be made on a later Clause.

Mr. Fletcher: With great respect, Sir Gordon, this Clause is designed to give the Department power to increase its guarantees from £150 million to £250 million. I understand, from what the Minister said on Second Reading and also from what was said today in response to the Amendment moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay), that the Minister is seeking to justify this increased provision by Parliament of £250 million as compared with £150 million by the desire of the Department to make progressive expansion in the work in which it is concerned.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate, of course, that here we are dealing only with the limited field of the special guarantees under Section 2 and that, of course, what the Department is addressing itself to is in the wider context of the ordinary guarantee system which represents, as I think I indicated on Second Reading, by far the larger proportion of the work of the Export Credits Guarantee Department.

Mr. Fletcher: I quite appreciate that, and I do not think that there is any real confusion about it. The work of the Department is split up between the two Sections, but where the line is drawn is somewhat arbitrary.
The point that I wish to suggest to the Minister is that while I commend the intention of the Department to make these guarantees to banks in respect of major capital goods, I hope that the benefit of the new ideas and concessions will be extended to cover such orders as those for heavy trucks, buses and motor traction and products in which motor car manufacturers are interested. In other words, I hope that the benefit will not be limited to major capital goods, but will be extended to other important export goods of the motor truck class, with which the economy of the country is so much concerned.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 2.—(EXTENSION OF POWER OF BOARD OF TRADE TO MAKE ARRANGEMENTS FOR RENDERING ECONOMIC ASSISTANCE TO COUNTRIES OUTSIDE U.K.)

Mr. Jay: I beg to move, in page 1, line 19, to leave out from "include" to "power".
This Amendment proposes to omit from the Bill the words by which the Board of Trade is attempting to legalise in retrospect its past illegal activities which were discussed on Second Reading. Again, we have not put down the Amendment because we wish to see the Minister of State languishing in the dock at the Old Bailey, or anything of that kind. We put it down in order to give the right hon. Gentleman the chance that he was rather reluctant to take on Second Reading of saying to the Committee that the Board of Trade has noted the rebuke administered to it by the Public Accounts Committee and is taking steps to comply with the really quite mild but, I think, quite reasonable request of the Public Accounts Committee that such irregularities should not be repeated.
The Minister produced a rather extraordinary argument on Second Reading to the effect that Her Majesty's subjects are entitled to disregard the laws if they choose to think that the laws were passed in defective form. I hope that the right hon. and learned Gentleman has since reconsidered that argument, because it seems to me an injudicious one either for a lawyer or a Member of Parliament to advance. Without repeating the whole rather sad story over again, I would say

that the Board of Trade did, in the case of the Pakistan transaction, advance £2,790,000 of public money out of the Consolidated Fund without legal authority. The Public Accounts Committee—not I—described that as irregular and disturbing.
I think that the incident, though serious in its way, could be forgiven by Parliament, provided that the Minister said that he regretted it and that it was not likely to be repeated. The reason we raise the matter again is that in our Second Reading proceedings the Minister preferred to treat the whole affair, including the Public Accounts Committee, almost as though it were a joke.
5.0 p.m.
The Minister described the word "irregularity" as being extravagant. For him to come to the House and to describe the Select Committee of Public Accounts as extravagant was rather light-headed or at any rate light-hearted language. All we are asking the Minister to do today is to say that he does take the Select Committee of Public Accounts seriously, and that the Board of Trade will comply with the request that it has made.
There has been a certain tendency on the part of the Government lately, particularly of the Board of Trade, not merely to make innumerable mistakes but to refuse to apologise or express any regret for them afterwards. I should like to remind the Minister that the Select Committee said:
They"—
that is, the Committee—
hope that all possible steps will be taken to guard against recurrence of such irregularities.
It is, therefore, not quite enough for the right hon. and learned Gentleman to say that by the very act of bringing forward this Bill, and this Clause, which I agree is the proper thing for him to do in the circumstances, he has thereby complied with that request. The Committee did not simply say that legal steps should be taken to get over this difficulty. It referred to "such irregularities", and I think it will be agreed that that clearly means irregularities not of this identical kind but other irregularities of this type which might occur in the advancing of moneys out of the Consolidated Fund.
I do not think that it would cost the Minister anything to tell us that his


Department has taken note of that. I am sure that he will accept Ministerial responsibility for it, especially as he was not there when it occurred—perhaps he was, because he has moved to and fro between Departments. I hope that he will not—as he seemed slightly inclined to do on Second Reading—throw the responsibility on to the civil servants of the Department. It is a matter of Ministerial responsibility, and we should like to know that the remarks of the Select Committee of Public Accounts have been noted.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I assure the Committee and the right hon. Gentleman immediately that nothing that I said on Second Reading was intended in any way to treat this matter lightly and certainly not, as the right hon. Gentleman has just said, almost as a joke. If I went into the matter in insufficient detail for the right hon. Gentleman on that occasion, and for the convenience of the House, I am sorry. I will therefore take a few minutes of the time of the Committee now by making good what I did not say then and putting this matter in its full perspective so that it may be entirely clear where blame lies in so far as blame there is.
As I indicated on Second Reading, in columns 406 and 407 of the OFFICIAL REPORT, there are three forms of procedure with which we are concerned in this context: the statutory procedure under the 1949 Act; the legally defective procedure, as it was ultimately discovered to be; and the revised procedure, which counsel suggested would cure the defects of the legally defective procedure. Perhaps I may indicate the course of events in the pattern of that context.
In March, 1954, there was entered into the Pakistan Agreement under what subsequently became the defective procedure. In August, 1954, the Export Credits Guarantee Department received legal advice that sufficient doubt existed whether the Agreement was in fact ultra vires to justify the continuance of existing schemes; but in October, 1954, counsel advised that the Agreement was legally defective, and suggested the revised procedure.
In March, 1955, the Iran Agreement was entered into as a new Agreement on the basis of the revised procedure; but the Pakistan Agreement, which had been

concluded under the defective procedure before the receipt of counsel's advice, was continued on the basis of the defective procedure until July, 1955. In July, 1955, the issues out of the Consolidated Fund were suspended in respect of the Pakistan Agreement until that Agreement was in effect varied to the revised procedure. During the period August to December, 1955, the revised procedure was introduced into the Pakistan Agreement by an exchange of letters with the Pakistan High Commissioner and then, on the conclusion of that, in December, 1955, the issue out of the Consolidated Fund was resumed.
The points that now arise are these. First, there was the failure of the Export Credits Guarantee Department to acquaint the Treasury with the position in the autumn of 1954 on receipt of counsel's opinion, and in respect of that the spokesman acknowledged error, as will be seen by reference to page 458 of the proceedings of the Select Committee of Public Accounts. He said:
… in retrospect I admit that it would have been better if we had made this situation fully known to the Treasury.
That was a frank statement, and I have no desire to resile in any way from it; but that is something which is now concluded and not, as I see it, relevant to the Amendment.
The other point which is relevant to the Amendment is the major point. Payments were made out of the Consolidated Fund for purchases under an agreement which was in fact ultra vires. Paragraph 46 of the Report of the proceedings of the Select Committee of Public Accounts says:
Issues from the Consolidated Fund totalling £2,790,000 had been made in 1954–55 for purchases under this agreement which, at the time, were ultra vires.
That is the Pakistan Agreement; but, of course, that was not the only Agreement made under the defective procedure and under which payments were made out of the Consolidated Fund. Agreements which are ultra vires do not become ultra vires only when counsel advises that they are.

Mr. Jay: Mr. Jay indicated assent.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am glad that the right hon. Gentleman accepts that. Such agreements are ultra vires ab initio from


the time they were made. Therefore, as the right hon. Gentleman will appreciate, it becomes material to inquire what other Agreements were initiated under the defective procedure and in respect of which payments were made ultra vires from the Consolidated Fund. It is those Agreements, and not only the Pakistan Agreement, which are being validated by the retrospective provision of the Clause which the right hon. Gentleman's Amendment seeks to omit.
The right hon. Gentleman talked about irregularities of this type and indicated that what the Select Committee on Public Accounts criticised might not apply only to the Pakistan Agreement. That is quite true, and I would invite his attention to these Agreements in particular, because I think that they will be of special interest to him: December, 1949, the Agreement with Yugoslavia under the old defective procedure; the President of the Board of Trade at that time was his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton (Mr. H. Wilson), the right hon. Gentleman himself holding office in the Treasury as Economic Secretary. Next, also in December, 1949, the Agreement with Iraq under the old defective procedure; the President of the Board of Trade was the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Huyton, the right hon. Gentleman himself then being Economic Secretary.
Then, in December, 1950, was the Agreement with Yugoslavia, still under the same old defective procedure; the same President of the Board of Trade, but a change in the position of the right hon. Gentleman, he by then being Financial Secretary to the Treasury and right at the heart of the citadel of the nation's finances. In January, 1951, there was a further defective agreement with Yugoslavia; still the same President of the Board of Trade, and still the right hon. Gentleman as Financial Secretary. I have nearly finished. In May, 1951, there was a further defective agreement with Yugoslavia; a new President of the Board of Trade—because the then Labour Government had succumbed to one of their traditional splits, and the right hon. Member for Huyton had been superseded by the right hon. and learned Member for St. Helens (Sir H. Shawcross). The right hon. Gentleman was still Financial Secretary.
Five defective agreements were entered into by the right hon. Gentleman's Government. I hope that he will attend to this matter, because he asked me specifically to particularise about what had happened and criticised me for my restraint during the Second Reading debate. The Labour Government entered into five agreements—all of them defective. Matters then followed the normal pattern, because it was left to the Conservative Government to discover the mistakes of the Labour Government and to set them right. Does the right hon. Gentleman contest the fact that all the agreements made by his Government were defective, and that when they went out of office nothing had been done to put them right?
He says that £2,790,000 was a lot of money to issue out of the Consolidated Fund upon this ultra vires basis. What does he think of the amounts which issued out of it under the agreements for which he and his right hon. Friend were responsible? In the case of Yugoslavia no less than £17 million issued out of the Consolidated Fund in relation to those Agreements. Of that £17 million, no less than £15,920,000 issued prior to November, 1951, and only £1,080,000 after. In the case of Iraq, £2,660,000 issued prior to November, 1951, and only £60,000 after. When the right hon. Gentleman talks about not wanting to see me languishing in gaol, it seems to me that he should have a greater care in regard to himself and his right hon. Friends who were responsible for all these defective agreements and these vast sums issuing ultra vires out of the Consolidated Fund.
I think that the right hon. Gentleman owes an explanation to the Committee upon one or two points. Has he consulted his right hon. Friend the Member for Huyton about all these things which happened in his time? Has he consulted his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Helens? This is very much a legal problem. Has he consulted any lawyer Members on his side of the House?—not necessarily his right hon. and learned Friend the Member for St. Helens, because he may not have been very easy to get hold of. But there are others. Has he taken the precaution of inquiring what will be the legal effect of the Amendment for which he takes authority by putting it on the Order Paper? Will he tell the Committee


whether he was aware of these agreements from 1949 to 1951?
I want to know. If so, why did not he mention them? Was he suppressing them from the House or did he not know about them?

Mr. Jay: When the hon. and learned Member has finished, I will answer his question, but I do not wish to interrupt him.

Mr. Walker-Smith: I am quite happy to give way at any moment in relation to any of the questions I asked him.
Perhaps he did not know about the Agreements. Was he ignorant of these five defective Agreements between 1949 and 1951, when he was at the Treasury? Was he ignorant of this £18 million or so issuing ultra vires from the Consolidated Fund when he was Financial Secretary? If so, it seems to me that he was very negligent in the conduct of his office. If he did not know about them it was surely very disrespectful to Parliament to put down this Amendment without taking the trouble to inquire into the facts and explain them to Parliament. The Committee is entitled to an explanation on all these points from the right hon. Gentleman.
5.15 p.m.
The retrospective provision is necessary so that the action taken under the old defective procedure by both Governments—but initially by his—shall be validated, and so that any doubts that may exist in regard to the question of validity under the revised procedure may be removed. When that has been done I am satisfied that the law will stand in accordance with the original intention of Parliament in 1949.
I had endeavoured to put the matter upon a temperate and objective basis during the Second Reading debate. My reward was to be criticised by the right hon. Gentleman and told that I had treated the matter lightly. In response to that I have given the Committee a much fuller explanation of the whole history of this episode and of the rather ignominous and ignoble part played by the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends. I hope that he is grateful to me for the explanation and the elucidation that I have given.

Mr. Jay: The trouble about the Minister of State is that he is always more concerned with making partisan points than seeing that the Government act in the interests of the whole country. We have made it clear that we are not blaming anybody for what happened in this case. What we are anxious to do is to take steps to see that this kind of thing should not occur again. I have made it quite clear on several occasions that we are suggesting that he should comply with the recommendations of the Public Accounts Committee. All he had to say, quite briefly, was that that was what the Government intend to do. I take it that that is what his speech implies, although he always thinks it necessary to add these controversial and contumacious arguments which are largely superfluous.
It does not surprise me in the least to hear that other irregularities were committed. Surely the important thing is that when they come to light the Government should take the necessary action. In point of fact, it was the Public Accounts Committee which brought this matter to light. If they had come to light, with the help of the Public Accounts Committee, when either I or my hon. Friends had responsibility in the matter, we should have been the first to tell the House that we certainly would comply with the recommendations of the Committee. I do not understand why the right hon. and learned Gentleman could not quite simply have done the same. I take it from his speech that that is in fact what he was trying to tell the Committee.

Mr. Walker-Smith: The right hon. Gentleman asks why I do not give the assurance. The reason is that I have already done so, in direct response to the right hon. Gentleman's request. If he will look at the OFFICIAL REPORT of 20th March he will see that I said:
I will unreservedly give that assurance to the right hon. Gentleman, with which I hope he will be content."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 20th March, 1957; Vol. 567. c. 441.]
It is because the right hon. Gentleman was not content with that, but chose to put down the Amendment and make these further critical observations, that I ventured upon this rather wider explanation of the whole circumstance than I had thought strictly necessary during the Second Reading debate.
The right hon. Gentleman must not accuse me of introducing partisanship into this matter. I am merely in the position of the wicked animal in the French proverb, in that when I am attacked I defend myself.

Mr. Jay: The assurance which the right hon. and learned Member gave during the Second Reading debate unfortunately was not the one for which we had asked.

Mr. Walker-Smith: It was.

Mr. Jay: No, it was not. That was the only reason why we gave him a further opportunity to explain today. I think that he has "come clean" a little further today, and that on the whole the Committee may rest content with the position that we have now reached.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 3 ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Clause 4.—(SHORT TITLE AND CITATION.)

Mr. Walker-Smith: I beg to move, in page 2, line 31, at the end to add:
(2) Subsection (2) of section one of the Export Guarantees Act, 1952, is hereby repealed.
This is really a drafting Amendment, It is simply that the subsection to be repealed increases the limit of Section 2 guarantees from £100 million to £150 million. Now that the limit under the Bill is being increased to £250 million, the subsection is obviously redundant.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause, as amended, ordered to stand part of the Bill.

Bill reported, with an Amendment; as amended, to be considered Tomorrow.

MAGISTRATES' COURTS BILL [Lords]

Order for Second Reading read.

5.21 p.m.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
The Bill relates to procedure in magistrates' courts and, since about 750,000 cases are tried yearly in magistrates' courts, it is intrinsically a matter of importance. A great many of those cases are, of course, tried by lay magistrates, who in the past have many times been called the great unpaid. I sometimes think that they are not only the great unpaid, but all too frequently the great unthanked. We would all be glad to take any opportunity, particularly such an opportunity as a Bill of this sort gives us, to express the thanks of the Legislature for that great work which is carried on day in and day out in courts of summary jurisdiction.
The way in which we can best show our gratitude is by ensuring, as far as we can, that the procedure of these courts is as efficient as we can make it, that while we maintain—and this must always be our first consideration—the traditional safeguards for any accused man before a court, nevertheless the courts should transact their business with such expedition and with such economy of time and effort and such adaptation to changed circumstances as we as a Legislature can ensure.
The two weaknesses with which the Bill deals have shown themselves in the procedure of magistrates' courts. The first is the necessity of having the prosecution witnesses present in court even though the defendant has admitted his guilt. The second is the difficulty of proving previous convictions when the defendant stays away from the court. The Bill deals with those two matters. It is based on the Report of the Departmental Committee on the Summary Trial of Minor Offences, the chairman of which was Sir Reginald Sharpe. I know that it would be the wish of the House if I expressed our appreciation of the care and thoroughness with which the Committee went into these matters and the lucidity of its Report.
Perhaps it would be a help if I gave a brief history of the background of the two main matters with which the Bill deals. A magistrates' court has a statutory power to convict a defendant without hearing any evidence, if he appears before it and pleads guilty to the charge against him. Magistrates also have a statutory power, where they are satisfied that the summons has been properly served, to hear a case in the absence of the defendant. But what they have not got is the power to accept a plea of guilty from a defendant who does not appear.
In consequence, if the defendant does not appear, the prosecution must prove its case by sworn evidence, even though the defendant may have written to the court admitting the charge. In other words as the law stands at the moment, his letter cannot be accepted as a plea of guilty. In modern circumstances that is a great inconvenience. Up to the beginning of this century, an accused person almost invariably appeared before the bench where he lived and there was no real difficulty about absent defendants. But the coming of the internal combustion engine has caused a revolution in that, as in so many other matters.
Nowadays, a large proportion of the cases dealt with in magistrates' courts concern motorists who have committed an offence well outside the petty sessional division in which they live. That is true of all classes of motorists, of the lorry driver no less than the pleasure motorist. It is that which, on an increasing scale, has given rise to the problem of the absent defendant, the offence being charged where it occurred, which is frequently a place widely separated from the place where the defendant lives.
To cause the defendant, as the courts have power to do, to appear before them in every one of those cases would constitute a punishment which in many cases would be out of all proportion to the gravity of the case. It would involve expenditure on travelling and lodgings and the loss of one or two days' work. So it has long been the practice of the courts not to insist on the defendant appearing in those cases. As I have explained, that has the effect that the prosecution has to prove its case and that

police officers and other witnesses have to attend the court, which may be some distance from their station or place of business.
That can amount to a very grave waste of time. The Sharpe Committee estimated that in London alone, in the Metropolitan magistrates' courts, the equivalent of the full time of 89 policemen each day was involved in cases in which the defendant pleaded guilty. In a large proportion of those cases the defendant himself did not appear, but sent a letter pleading guilty. Although the Committee did not work out the loss of time in those cases, I think that it would be round about the equivalent of 60 police officers in each day in the London district. One thinks of their heavy duties in these days in the prevention of crime. It is accepted as an axiom that the best way of preventing crime is not by the severity or even by the certainty of the punishment, but by having the policeman on his beat arid on point duty. One can therefore see the great loss in time and valuable duties that is involved by this procedure.
I would quote one other figure given by the Sharpe Committee. I have given the London figures; the Committee also gives the results of observations made in Sheffield, regarded as a typical provincial town. The Committee found that the equivalent of the full time of six policemen per day was involved. If we multiply that by the number of provincial towns that there are we get a great loss of time. When one goes into the rural areas it may be even greater, because of the travelling time taken by police officers when going to the courts. The problem has attracted attention for some time, and certain alleviations have been carried out by administrative action. The main problem can be tackled only by legislation. The Bill undertakes that task.
The second matter to which I have referred, and with which the Sharpe Committee dealt, is the difficulty of proving previous convictions where the defendant does not appear. If he is convicted in his absence the prosecution cannot prove that a person who is not present is the same person who was convicted before a certain court on a certain day. That has to be considered in relation to the provision for endorsement


of driving licences, because many of these cases are of that description. But even that does not gat over the difficulty by a long way. At the end of three years without any fresh offence the endorsements on the licences are expunged. In the case of some offences that happens at the end of one year. I think that that applies to speeding offences, which is a very frequent type of offence.
The courts could get over the difficulty by issuing a warrant to bring a defendant before the court so that he could be identified, but, as I tried to point out earlier, that would be unduly harsh in relation to the gravity of the offence. In any case, the High Court has held that there is no right to issue a warrant where the accused man is already represented before the court by counsel or solicitor. As a result, people with bad records are able, by staying away from the court on the day of the trial, to ensure that they are dealt with as though they were first offenders. The House will agree that that is not a desirable state of affairs.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: Would not the hon. and learned Gentleman agree that in principle it is desirable that a defendant who has had previous convictions should, before he sends in his notification of a desire to plead "Guilty" to a charge, have been given notification of the previous convictions which may be taken into account?

Mr. Simon: I entirely agree with that. The hon. Gentleman will see that the Bill takes that matter into account.

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend's intervention was a question addressed to the Joint Under-Secretary of State. I do not know to which of the two answers that might have been given to the question the hon. and learned Gentleman was indicating his agreement.

Mr. Simon: I was agreeing to the question, which I thought was addressed to me, whether it was not desirable, before an accused man pleaded "Guilty" to having had previous convictions—

Mr. Ede: "'Guilty' to a charge."

Mr. Simon: I am much obliged to the right hon. Gentleman. I see that we were at cross purposes. The point is that before a person who pleads "Guilty"

admits previous convictions he should know what is alleged against him. I can see the point; that is obviously a matter that we shall consider. I was just turning to the provisions of the Bill.
Clause 1 (1) sets out the new procedure for accepting a plea of "Guilty" from an absent defendant. It will apply at the instance of the prosecutor and with the consent of the accused and of the court. It is limited to the sphere of summary offences for which the accused cannot be sentenced to more than three months' imprisonment. That is in accordance with the recommendations of the Sharpe Committee. In other words, it is limited to offences for which he cannot claim to be tried by jury and for which, by and large, he cannot be sent by the court to be tried by jury. Perhaps I can refer to paragraphs (a) and (b) to show that it must not be
an offence which is also triable on indictment
or
an offence for which the accused is liable to be sentenced to be imprisoned for a term exceeding three months.…
The reason for that is clearly that if the court is to exercise discretion to send an accused person for trial by jury, or if he himself elects to go for trial by jury, it is highly desirable, to put it no lower, that he himself should be present to hear or to make the election. I am glad to see that hon. Members who have court experience in these matters assent to that proposal, which is in accordance with the Sharpe Committee's recommendation. It will bring about 600,000 cases within the scope of the new procedure, about six-sevenths of the cases tried in magistrates' courts.
That is not to say that the procedure will be invoked in anything like that number of cases. The prosecution will not seek to use it in a proportion of cases. It is open to every court to decide not to adopt the procedure in the circumstances of any particular case.
One matter in Clause 1 (1) marks a departure from the recommendations of the Departmental Committee, the exclusion of juvenile courts. As hon. Members know, the juvenile courts deal with children up to 14 years of age and with young persons between 14 and 17. The Sharpe Committee made no recommendation relating to children, but it recommended that the procedure should be


applicable to young persons before the juvenile courts.
There are special and real difficulties of procedure, which I know will be present to the minds of right hon. and hon. Gentlemen who are magistrates, in applying this sort of procedure at all to juvenile courts. In addition, the procedure before juvenile courts is being considered as part of the matter before a committee under the chairmanship of Lord Ingleby. That being so, it seems to the Government a strong and convincing reason for excluding juvenile courts from the operation of the Clause at this stage, quite apart from the difficulties which would arise in invoking the procedure for the juvenile courts.
The subsection provides, first, that the new procedure shall apply only where the accused has been served, together with the summons, with a statement of the effect of the Section—and that means a notice telling him that he may plead guilty in writing if he so wishes—and also a concise statement of the facts relating to the alleged offence which will be placed before the court by the prosecution if he pleads guilty without appearing and the court accepts the plea. The Departmental Committee considered that no defendant should be told that he has a right to plead guilty in writing without also being told what facts about his offence would be placed before the court if they accepted his plea and that no other facts would be placed before them.
I turn to Clause 1 (2), which is the main operative part of the Bill. It provides that where a written plea of guilty is made, the accused does not appear and it is proved that the statement of the effect of the Section has been brought to his notice and he has been served with the summons and the statement of facts, the court may dispose of the case in his absence as if he had appeared and pleaded guilty. Before so deciding, the courts are to consider the statement of facts and the written plea, including any statement that he makes in mitigation; and if they decide to accept the plea, then the statement of facts and any submission in mitigation are to be read out before the court. The subsection also provides that a court may so proceed in the absence of the prosecutor, and that is the object of the procedure.

Mr. H. Hynd: On a point of order. Would it be possible, Mr. Speaker, for you to have the temperature in the Chamber checked? It seems to be very cold.

Mr. Simon: I am glad to receive the reassurance that it was not I who was affecting the temperature. I always endeavour not to inflame the atmosphere, and this is not a particularly inflammatory matter, but perhaps I could try to engage in a little more controversy before the temperature is checked.
Subsection (2) also sets out various safeguards which were recommended by the Sharpe Committee. There are three provisos. The first is that at any time before the hearing the accused may withdraw his written plea of guilty. The second is that the court may in any case decide not to accept the written plea of guilty from an absent defendant and, if so, shall adjourn the hearing to give him an opportunity of being present. Hon. Members will know that in many cases one has a plea of guilty which is fallowed by an explanation which amounts to a defence, and the second proviso deals with that, among other cases.
The third proviso is that where the court accepts the written plea of guilty it shall not take into consideration any statement by the prosecutor with respect to any facts relating to the offence charged other than those contained in the statement of facts which has been served on the defendant with the summons, unless it adjourns the trial after conviction but before sentence. Further, if the court accepts the plea of guilty, it shall not without adjourning sentence the accused to imprisonment or detention or any form of disqualification. I think the House will agree that those are all obvious and necessary safeguards, and unless hon. Members wish I do not propose to comment further on them.
The remainder of Clause 1 contains restrictions on the court's powers to issue a warrant of arrest where the accused has acted on the intimation that he may plead guilty without appearing. The reason is that it would obviously be unfair, when an accused man has been told that he need not appear and has sent a written statement that he is guilty, immediately to issue a warrant to bring him before the court. It is considered


right that he should have an opportunity of coming voluntarily before the court in answer to a summons. There is a special provision, too, to enable the new procedure to apply satisfactorily in relation to proceedings in respect of national insurance offences.
Clause 2 is not based on a recommendation of the Departmental Committee, but is linked with its recommendation. It provides that in certain motoring offences—and we have particularly in mind parking offences and obstruction—where the accused has admitted in writing that he was himself the driver, that admission shall be admissible as evidence that he was the driver at the time in question. That is an extension of the provision in the Criminal Justice Act, 1948, Section 41, which the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) will have particularly in mind and which provides that in similar circumstances a certificate of an oral admission by the accused that he was the driver shall be admissible.
It may be helpful if I give an example to illustrate the need for this provision. When the parking meter procedure system is set up, the local authorities will be charged with the enforcement and the local authority attendant will take down the numbers of the cars which commit offences. Very often he will not see the driver. The name of the owner will be ascertainable from the registration index and the police—a different enforcement authority from the local authority—will be able to find from the owner the name of the driver in most cases.

Mr. Ernest Davies: The police will be able to find the owner.

Mr. Simon: They will find the owner from the index, and from the owner they will ascertain the driver of the vehicle at the time in question—the man who was responsible for the offence.

Mr. Charles Royle: If he knows.

Mr. Simon: Of course, there are cases in which he would not know, but in the majority of cases the local authority will eventually obtain a written admission from the driver. Unless that written admission is admissible in evidence, the local authority will have to arrange for

the constable who has interviewed the driver, and who may be in an area far distant from the court, to attend the court. This provision is therefore within the spirit of the Sharpe Committee's procedure but is not precisely recommended by them.
Clause 3 carries out a further recommendation of the Departmental Committee. It provides that where a notice specifying alleged previous summary convictions is proved to have been served on the accused at least seven days before the hearing and the accused does not appear in person, the court may take account of these convictions as if the accused had appeared and admitted them. That overcomes the difficulty relating to previous convictions to which I have referred. The procedure will apply at the trial of any summary offence, and in respect of any previous summary conviction, and summary offences in this context includes those offences which are triable both summarily and on indictment, for example dangerous driving.
The procedure in Clause 3 is wider in scope than in Clause 1. It is designed to meet the difficulty I mentioned at the outset, that if the accused chooses to stay away from court, there is no effective way in which previous convictions can be proved. I understand that a similar procedure has been in use for some time in Scotland and Northern Ireland, and has proved successful.

Mr. Ede: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman help me regarding this point? Notice has to be given to a person within seven days of the case coming before the court.

Mr. Simon: More than seven days.

Mr. Ede: That merely emphasises the point I wish to make. Suppose a defendant does not write to admit that he is going to plead guilty until four or five days before the case is due to be heard and he has a very bad record. What is to happen then? Is there to be any compulsion on him to answer eight days before his case is due for hearing?

Mr. Simon: As I understand the provisions of the Bill, if he sends a written admission that he is guilty at any time, then, provided that seven days or more before the hearing he has been served with a notice of previous convictions and has


not disputed them, they are admissible in evidence. I do not know whether I have made that clear.

Mr. Ede: Let us assume that the man writes so near to the date fixed for the hearing that seven days are not left. What will be the procedure for the bench to follow? Will the magistrates say, "We give you notice of these previous convictions, and we have adjourned the hearing from the date we originally fixed until seven or fourteen days later"?

Mr. Simon: Of course, the bench has complete discretion and power in all these cases to adjourn them, either in order for the accused to come lo plead or to adjourn after conviction but before sentence. To take again the case put to me by the right hon. Gentleman, it matters not, as I understand it, at what date the accused may write admitting his guilt. His previous convictions are admissible against him provided that he has been served with a notice of them seven or more days before the hearing.
I need only mention Clause 4, which clarifies a point in the Magistrates Courts Act, 1952, which was a consolidating Act. I do not think I need trouble the House with it at this stage. I am sorry to have detained the House so long with this short Bill and to have gone into matters of detail to a greater extent than is customary in a Second Reading speech. I have done so because the Bill proposes a fundamental alteration in procedure and I wished to make clear that that, while the Bill is aimed at avoiding waste of time, it does not do so at the expense of the accused; his position is amply safeguarded. I hope that the House will agree and will share the view of the Government that this is a useful Measure which will facilitate the work of these important courts and prevent a great many people having to waste valuable time going through the useless exercise of proving what nobody seeks to deny.

5.54 p.m.

Mr. Charles Royle: In speaking on a Bill of this character—even though it be my first appearance at the Dispatch Box—perhaps the House may not think it necessary for me to ask for the indulgence of hon. Members. Obviously in a political sense there is no

controversy between the two sides of the House at all.
The Joint Under-Secretary of State began his speech by expressing thanks to the lay magistrates—the great underpaid and unthanked. The hon. and learned Gentleman went out of his way to thank them, and as one of them, perhaps I may be allowed to have the temerity to accept those thanks, and to say that we appreciate them very much, although we agree that there are few occasions on which lay magistrates are thanked for the services that they render to the country. I join with the hon. and learned Gentleman in thanking the Departmental Committee under the chairmanship of Sir Reginald Sharpe for its excellent Report on which the Bill was based. I should like also to thank the hon. and learned Gentleman for his full and lucid explanation of the Bill.
I shall certainly recommend to my right hon. and hon. Friends that we pass this Bill. As the hon. and learned Gentleman pointed out, the Report of the Departmental Committee is a very good one. It was produced only after a great deal of thought. But in spite of the fact that it is such a short Bill, its provisions will result in a minor revolution in the work of magistrates and of magistrates' courts. But in my view the suggestions are admirable. It is an old legal principle that it is not justice to try a case in the absence of the defendant, and it is true that we should not sacrifice justice for the sake of saving time.
If I may say so, the ability to use time in a good cause is an admirable trait, but under modern conditions we have discovered that there is justification for saving some time, and I think that the safeguards in the Bill, which were explained by the hon. and learned Gentleman, are sufficient.
We need to save the time of our courts. It would not be an exaggeration to say that from time to time there seem to be hordes of policemen in our magistrates' courts. Last Saturday week, when I was presiding over my own local bench—and Saturday is not a busy day—there were 17 cases to be dealt with. None was serious. As I took my place on the bench I saw that there were 24 policemen in court, and this in a comparatively small town with a population of 150,000. When the hon. and learned Gentleman quoted


the figure of 89 for the whole of the Metropolitan area, I considered they were fortunate indeed compared with my own experience.
On that morning the cases included one involving a motorist who had driven in a controlled area at 40 m.p.h. Evidence was given by four policemen. They were the two patrolmen who were together in the police car; a policeman from another area, in which the defendant lived, who gave evidence about serving the summons and asking whether the defendant was in charge of the car at the time, and so on, and another police officer who gave evidence that the speedometer of the police car was in order at the time. That kind of thing is experienced by all who carry out magisterial duties.
Surely it is true to say that the police have many more important duties to perform than to attend court to give such evidence, and that is a consideration, quite apart from the question of their rest and leave periods. Often policemen are brought to court to give evidence during what is their rest or leave period. There is also the question of witnesses who are often taken from their work, which results in a loss of industry and expense, either to the defendant or the ratepayers, as the case may be. Is it not right that this House should consider even the time of the defendant? Is that not fair? People who appear before courts of summary jurisdiction on these technical offences are not habitual criminals. Even if they have offended against the law in a minor way, we have an obligation to consider their time and even their expense.
I should like to stress that the Bill is not intended merely to deal with motoring offences. Clause 1 explains the types of offence which can be dealt within this way. While it may be motoring offences which are generally dealt with under this Measure, many other kinds of offence will be decided under it. My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice), in conversation with me before we began to debate the Bill, said that he had certain reservations about some of the offences which might come under its provisions.
The Bill represents a great improvement on the present position. Today, cases are heard in the absence of defendants, but, officially, no plea may be accepted in such circumstances.

Officially, no letter may be read, except a letter of apology for absence, and in no sense may there be a plea of guilty or not guilty. As the Departmental Committee said, in paragraph 15 of its Report, at present the case must be proved by the prosecution, and, in effect, that is what takes up a lot of time. In fairness to the Bill, I must say that it will end many of these anomalies.
I should like to make a few detailed comments on what is in the Bill and what is not. First, I should like to express pleasure at the fact that the Departmental Committee has rejected the idea of fining on the spot. It has been held in many quarters that the time of defendants might be saved if the police were empowered to stop a motorist or any person suspected of having committed a minor offence, draw the fine and give the person a receipt. That is done in the United States of America and in other countries as well.
Although this saves time, it appears to me not to be in line with our ideas of justice. I do not believe that such a system—I will not put it any higher than this—would improve the relationship between the public and the police. In fact, I feel that there might grow up a feeling of hatred which does not exist at present. I am very glad that this suggestion was rejected by the Sharpe Committee.
In one of our previous Measures dealing with magistrates' courts we altered the name applied to courts of summary jurisdiction. No longer were they to be called police courts; they were to be called magistrates' courts. Whenever I see a reference in a newspaper to a "police court", I immediately write a letter to the editor and draw attention to his mistake. It should be stressed that the evidence of a policeman in the eyes of the justices has exactly the same weight as evidence given by anybody else. In the application of this Bill I trust that there will be a growing sense of the magistrates' court rather than of the police court.
I was glad when the Joint Under-Secretary of State said that the Bill does not relate to juvenile courts. I think that, generally speaking, it is wise to bring young offenders before the court and that it is a good thing for them to see the law in action. But I do not believe that it


would be very satisfactory for young people to plead guilty in those circumstances. There might be some complications involving a case in which a person aged 20 and a much younger person were charged together, but I do not believe that that complication in itself would justify bringing juveniles within the scope of the Bill.
It is important to note that the Bill cannot be used in cases where the defendant decides to plead not guilty. We take steps in the Bill to make sure that a man knows that he is pleading guilty. If, in the magistrate's view, the explanation which an accused gives in the course of his letter indicates that he is, in fact, pleading not guilty, provision is made for an adjournment of the case.
It is interesting to note, too, that the most serious motoring case would be one which came within the description of "without due care and attention." No more serious type of motoring case may be dealt with under this Bill. For that offence, the maximum fine for a first offender can be £40, but I believe that the safeguard of adjournment as provided for in the Bill is quite sufficient. If a man felt that because of his previous record and, perhaps, because of the seriousness of the case, he would make himself liable to a fine of anything like approaching £40, I am sure that he himself would not plead guilty by letter.
When the Bill was being considered in another place, some discussion took place on the possibility of imposing a minimum fine of £5. An Amendment to that effect was not accepted. I feel that if a defendant fears a very large fine, it is up to him to appear before the magistrates and to make his mitigation appeal direct rather than to plead guilty by letter. In any case, I am sure that justices would adjourn a case before imposing such a large fine.
I should like to comment on Clause 3, relating to the reading of previous convictions. This will be a great improvement. Previously in law, records could not be read in the absence of a defendant, and that has proved to be an incentive for the defendant to stay away from court. If an accused has known that his past record could not be divulged to the magistrates in his absence, it has been a big temptation not to appear in court.
There is a tendency on the part of magistrates when a man does not appear to impose a fine perhaps of an extra 10s., because he has not attended the court; or, to put it the other way, if a man has taken the trouble to appear in court there has been a tendency to be more lenient with him.
My next comment is an important one, and it is a comment which, I hope, will reach the ears of the chiefs of police. I hope that the Bill will not lead to chiefs of police ceasing to issue warnings to offenders. In my view, there is some danger of that in what the Bill proposes. It might be thought, "We are giving the man an opportunity to plead guilty by letter", and chief constables and superintendents might be inclined to prosecute in any circumstances rather than give a warning.
I am told that in 1955, taking the whole of the United Kingdom, chief constables and superintendents of police issued 176,389 warnings in motoring offences, and did not prosecute. That is a very valuable provision which we possess, where normally law-abiding people are involved.
The 1952 Magistrates Courts Act takes means into consideration. This is something with which we should be concerned. When a defendant appears, it is quite regular to find out what is his ability to pay before imposing a penalty. Making the penalty fit the purse is perhaps fairer than sticking to Gilbert and Sullivan and making the penalty fit the crime. Under the Bill, of course, magistrates can adjourn to find out about means, but the other Act is relied on for the power, and justices may not have this information under this Measure. We shall have to fall back on the 1952 Act. I have a little doubt as to whether full consideration has been given to giving magistrates full opportunity of knowing what the means of a defendant are before they proceed to impose a penalty.
I have more doubts about delivery of notifications, particularly notification of an adjournment. I have been appeased to some extent by the statement of the Lord Chancellor in another place. Since he was speaking for the Government, I am in order, I believe, in quoting what he said. On 28th March, the noble Viscount said:
I can confirm that when I consult the Rule Committee for magistrates' courts or. The


making of the rules which will be necessary to implement this Bill, I will suggest to them that service by this method ought not to be treated as proved unless there is evidence that the summons did come to the accused's knowledge; that is, that service by this method should be put on all fours with service by registered post.
A little later he said:
I can assure the noble Lord that every step will be taken to see that an adjournment such as is contemplated under the Bill will be brought to the notice of the defendants, and I shall give that point personal consideration once again."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, House of Lords, 28th March, 1957; Vol. 202, c. 870.]
That is very wise. It is very desirable that that assurance should be given.
I want to make a point now in the interests of simplicity. This is one of my doubts about the Bill. The process of notification within the terms of the Bill seems to be rather complicated. The initial consideration of the two documents envisaged in Clause 1 (1) must be done without the documents being read aloud at the early stage. The magistrates will have these two documents mentioned in Clause 1 (1) before them, and they will read them. If there is no adjournment, the court will convict immediately.
Thus, the first words which will be spoken from the bench, indeed, the first words to be spoken by anyone in court, will be, "We convict." Then, after conviction, and only after conviction, those two documents will be read before the whole court. Presumably, the clerk will read them. My fear is that this might possibly give the impression of a very close relationship between the police and the court. In my view, it is rather undignified and perhaps suspicious for justices to consider documents whose contents are unknown to anyone else in the court. The Bill, in effect, substitutes a written document for an oral statement in mitigation.
Why should not the present form of trial be continued, with the reading aloud of the documents instead of oral statements as we have now? The Bill could authorise the prosecution to read the statement of fact; the clerk could read the defendant's submission. The court could then announce conviction and penalty, and in that there would be nothing sub rosa. The Bill is concerned with expediency. Its object is to save time and avoid attendance at court. Unless the method in these cases is rendered more expeditious,

the Bill could quite conceivably make the overall position worse than it is at the moment. I feel that even the reading of the documents is superfluous, and I think that we could do without it.
Finally, I would just say, in passing, that we recognise that Clause 4 was added in another place. It has nothing to do with the main principle of the Bill, but it was introduced only to bring the consolidation Act up to date.
This is a good Bill. I would recommend my right hon. and hon. Friends to give it a Second Reading, in spite of the few reservations which I have named; perhaps the Committee stage could deal with them if necessary. I congratulate the Government on introducing the Measure, and I am sure that I speak for my right hon. and hon. Friends in wishing it a successful and, if I may say so, speedy passage in all its stages.

6.19 p.m.

Mr. Charles Doughty: I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) on the position which he has occupied at the Dispatch Box. I hope to see him there on many occasions speaking as ably, pleasantly and courteously as he has this evening. With one exception, I agree with every word he said, which is something which cannot always be said of the words of an hon. Member speaking for the Opposition in this House.
I will deal at once with the one exception, wherein I disagree with the hon. Gentleman. He said that the documents provided for in Clause 1 (1) should not be read in court. One of the fundamental principles of British justice, be it at a serious trial or at the trial of what we sometimes call a trivial offence, is that the proceedings should be public. If a particular type of offence is becoming too prevalent, even if only such an offence as riding a bicycle without lights, it is necessary that one should at least know who are the offenders, what the fines are and the reasons for them. Otherwise, it might appear that someone has been over-fined for what is said to be a trivial offence.
But, when the full facts are heard and recorded, it may well become quite obvious why the defence took a certain course and why the magistrates acted as they did. Therefore, in the interests of the publicity of justice—that everything


should be done in public and that the Press should, if necessary, be at liberty to report the happenings in their local courts—although I respect the hon. Member's sincerity, I disagree with just that one remark in his able and pleasant speech in support of the Bill.
All of us who have attended courts for many years realise the great waste of time that is caused, both to those who are interested in what is sometimes called the prosecution—namely, police and witnesses—and to the defendants as well, not only in attending court but also in waiting, sometimes for an hour or two hours, before their not very serious offences are brought before the bench of justices or the stipendiary magistrates. It is to avoid this waste of time that this excellent Bill has been introduced.
The Bill is a half-way house between the two aspects to which the hon. Member referred, namely, the speedy administration of injustice by fining on the spot, which can only be done either on the opinion of a policeman or by a standard which has been laid down beforehand, and lo which, I am sure, everybody, on both sides, would object as strongly as I do myself, and the other factor that every case must be tried in full, even when a bicycle is alleged to have been ridden without a rear light. Every case must be heard to the full and every person must be able to be heard in his own defence.
Another matter to which I object is the suggestion that because an offence is trivial, a person is not entitled to be heard just as fully in his defence. The Bill preserves that right to the full. It may well be that people will still wish to appear and to contend that they were riding a bicycle with a rear light, were not exceeding the 30 m.p.h. limit or were not committing whatever other less serious offence is charged against them. I hope that no criticism will be levelled at people who do appear that they are wasting the time of the court. I do not believe that that will happen. British justice does not work that way.
For a variety of reasons—partly the introduction of the internal combustion engine and partly as the result of legislation passed in this House by the present and previous Governments—there are now more offences and, therefore, magistrates of all kinds throughout the country

have more cases brought before them. To meet the difficulties which that presents, the Bill steers the right and correct course while maintaining the interests of publicity, the interests of the accused and the proper administration of justice.
I am sure that all hon. Members will regard the Bill as an advance in the administration of justice, always remembering that 95 per cent, or more of the people who come before the courts are concerned with trivial offences and, as defendants, are by far the greatest majority of people who are concerned with the administration of justice. We must, therefore, consider them very fully. I am sure that the Bill does so and I give it my full blessing.

6.23 p.m.

Mr. Ede: Unlike previous speakers on the Bill, I view it with grave misgivings. Both the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, who introduced the Bill, and the hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) brought into their speeches the phrase "internal combustion engine". While my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) was not as technical, it was quite clear that he also recognised that the real reason for the Bill is the number of motoring offences that come before the courts. That is not unconnected with the terrible toll of life and the number of injuries that are caused by mechanically propelled vehicles in various parts of the country. It is significant that with the lessening of the number of these lethal weapons on the roads the number of deaths and accidents has fallen.
Enough inroads into the recognised procedure of the courts have already been made owing to the presence of these weapons of destruction on the roads. Prior to their appearance, everybody knew what was meant by being drunk in charge of a vehicle. Doctors knew what being drunk was. But no sooner did middle-class clients begin to be charged with being drunk than doctors said, "'Drunk' is a colloquial word. It does not mean anything. I can tell you the symptoms that I observe and it is up to the justices, either at the petty sessional bench or at quarter sessions, to decide whether that is drunk."
When I was a sergeant in the Army I had a good working definition of what it


was to be drunk. If a man could take his boots off before getting into bed, he was not drunk. That would not, however, be a standard that could be applied in civilian life. Therefore, we have this wonderful phrase now about being sufficiently under the influence of drink or drugs to be incapable of properly controlling the vehicle. One gets expert witnesses on both sides as to the exact condition of the man.
When it was a humble carter driving a horse and cart home from a market or from a fair who was charged with being drunk, no police doctor had any doubt about being able to certify one way or the other. Now, however, we are brought into these new conditions. In spite of what he said, that they will apply to other offences, the speeches of the three hon. Members who have preceded me, two of them hon. and learned Members, indicated that but for motoring offences the Bill would not have been brought forward.
I hope that what my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West suggested should be the procedure under the Bill—that the magistrates should consider these matters in silence and then announce at the end the punishment they intend to inflict—will not be the practice of the courts. The first thing to happen will be that when my hon. Friend presides over a bench and, after studying the documents and having consulted his colleagues on either side, he says that there will be a fine of £5, somebody will say, "Well, of course, but for the fact that we know that the fellow who was charged, is rather sweet on the learned chairman's granddaughter, the fine would have been much heavier."
One has to protect the bench on occasion, and it can only be done if al! that is before the bench is made known in open court. When the Bill says, in line 14, page 2, that
the court may proceed to hear and dispose of the case",
I assume that some audible sounds would be uttered that would not merely inform the bench but would inform everybody else present in court what is, in fact, in front of the court and the ground on which the court rests its decision.

Mr. Doughty: Has the right hon. Gentleman read lines 34 and 35?

Mr. Ede: Yes. I hope that that is what will happen. As I understood my hon. Friend, however, he suggested that that would not happen.

Mr. Royle: I said that I regarded that as the danger in the Bill, and that I opposed it and was seeking much better safeguards by asking that there should be a real statement of the case before any announcement concerning penalty or even that there was to be a conviction.

Mr. Ede: As I understand it, that is what the Bill provides for. If it is not, I shall regard it with even more misgiving than I do now, because I am certain that if it appears something is to be hushed up, or if there is unnecessary whispering, sometimes for a prolonged period, between the clerk of the court and the chairman, that may give rise to an opinion among the public present in court that somehow the course of justice is being deflected.
I am still not quite clear how the question of previous convictions will be dealt with. This is what I understand happens. The clerk of the court sees that when the summons is issued a statement accompanies it that if the person so desires he can plead guilty; and that on this statement to the defendant there will be a statement—sometimes, I imagine, in rather reduced form, though I hope that it will be fairly full—of the evidence to be tendered. In the case of a summons for driving without due care and attention, that may involve a statement of several witnesses who are going to be called. Then the defendant has a right to say to the court in writing that he does not propose to attend but that he pleads guilty. If it is known to the prosecution that there are previous convictions, I understand he has to be served with a notice of those previous convictions.

Mr. Simon: Perhaps it would be convenient if I elucidated that now, as the right hon. Gentleman puts it in interrogative form. The notice of previous convictions may accompany the summons, but it may not, because the evidence of the previous convictions may not by that time be in the hands of the prosecutor. So it may follow afterwards, or, in the case where the prosecuting authority has all the records, it may accompany the summons.

Mr. Ede: It is quite evident that the course I am indicating is not impossible under the arrangements proposed.
That has to be done seven days or more before the hearing, but defendants are often very slack in answering this kind of communication. I sit on a bench which has a considerable number of motoring offences before it, and it not infrequently happens that a letter arrives by the second post on the day of the hearing and during the hearing of the case.
There is one other thing I want to know. It is quite important that the bench hearing the case should not know of the previous convictions at too early a stage. Of course, this is all complicated now by the seven days' notice. The bench, giving its first attention to the case, will have before it, as far as I can see, a statement of what the previous convictions are. I admit that, the defendant having pleaded guilty, the statement cannot influence the mind of the court on the question of guilt or innocence, but personally I prefer the old way of doing things, by which guilt is either admitted or found, and then the magistates turn to the senior police officer present and ask, in the hackneyed phrase, "Anything known?" And then the police officer reads out what, if anything, is known. At any rate in the theory of the law, that is the first that the bench knows of the accused man's previous record.
I regard with some misgiving this arrangement by which the bench, as soon as the court assembles and the chairman begins to go through the business of the day, knows what the past records of some of these people are.

Mr. Doughty: In fairness to those who may receive summonses and notices of previous convictions, as provided in Clause 3, I would point out to the right hon. Gentleman that the Clause provides that it is not until after conviction and after proof of service of the notice that the court is allowed to see what the previous convictions were. I think he will agree with me that there is no change from the old practice, that the knowledge of previous convictions comes to the court only after the case has been heard and the accused found guilty, perhaps on his own admission.

Mr. Ede: That is what I started with, that that is how it would be done, that he would write to the clerk of the court and say, "I desire to plead guilty. I do not intend to come. Kindly fill in the blank cheque I enclose herewith, and beg the magistrates to be moderate in the sum they ask you to insert." But we were told that the notice of previous convictions might or might not accompany the summons. That is what the Joint Under-Secretary of State intervened to say.
This is so important a matter in the assessment of penalty that I hope the Joint Under-Secretary of State will so accept it, because I have heard my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Montgomery (Mr. C. Davies) often say that the question of guilt or innocence is comparatively easy to settle in the majority of cases but that the assessment of the proper penalty to inflict after a verdict of guilty has been made presents a real problem. Those with any experience either as advocates or as members of benches of magistrates know how true that is. I regard the matters I have raised as matters of procedure and matters which in the clearest possible terms should be found in the Bill and which should be most carefully defined in any rules which are made or in any circulars which are issued to the magistrates.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West, I desire to thank the Joint Under-Secretary of State for his kind words about whom he called the "great unthanked" rather than the great unpaid. We occasionally get thanks. I recollect that a friend of mine who sat in this House in the Parliament of 1929 to 1931, Mr. Egan, who, at the time I last saw him, was Mayor of Birkenhead, gave me a wonderful example of the way in which a bench is thanked on occasion. A separation order had just been made at the instance of the wife, and the chairman of the bench said to the wife, "And we award you 30s. a week." The defendant said, "Thank you very much, Sir, on behalf of my wife. I was going to give her a bit myself."
No one desires that the time of witnesses, defendants, prosecutors or magistrates should be wasted in the court. But it is very important that any economy made in time shall not be at the expense of the justice to be done. It is a necessary safeguard in the Bill, and I


hope that it will be scrupulously observed, that no sentence of imprisonment or detention shall be passed in the absence of the defendant. I am not quite sure what remedy the defendant will have if a bench, being impressed by the enormity of the driving without due care and attention or some other offence that entitles magistrates to do so, inflicts imprisonment. I take it that any action before a superior court would be for the quashing of a particular sentence in the circumstances in which it was passed and would not affect the conviction that had previously been recorded.
I mention that because it is one of the matters in which a bench of magistrates, ignoring the advice of the clerk, may proceed to administer justice rather than law, with results that cannot be defended. It is a further example of the need for the utmost care in giving advice to those who have to adjudicate, if this Bill is passed, so that errors shall not be committed. I regret that the Bill has been introduced, though I think that the Government had very little option but to introduce it.
At the same time, we ought not to think that in the twentieth century we can deal with these matters with less care than that applied to them in the nineteenth century. Modern inventions have placed in the hands of large numbers of people opportunities of committing breeches not merely of the law of the land but of the social law than hitherto was available for so large a section of the population. I regret that the Bill had to be introduced, and I hope that during its passage we shall make every effort to see that the necessary safeguards are inserted in it to secure that justice shall be done.

6.43 p.m.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: I am sorry to hear that the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) regrets the introduction of the Bill, because I think that most people on both sides of the House will agree that it is a practical and much-needed Measure. I am sorry, also that the right hon. Gentleman should drag in cases of "drunk in charge", because, as far as I can see, the Bill would have no application to such cases. It refers to cases of offences which are not triable on indictment and those for which the accused

is not liable to be sentenced to imprisonment exceeding three months. I think that the right hon. Gentleman, therefore, will agree that the Bill deals with trivial
cases.

Mr. Ede: I introduced that only as proving that there is no "drunk in charge" now. The doctors wiped that out themselves.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: I can only be charitable and hope that it is the right hon. Gentleman's well-known love of the horse that leads to his apparent dislike of motor vehicles.
Obviously, the Bill is of great importance to magistrates and to those who drive motor vehicles, because 60 per cent. of cases which come before the magistrates today are motoring cases. The Bill will simplify the procedure and lead to elimination of waste of time. These cases sometimes can be a waste of time. I might recall to the House an occasion twenty years ago when I was the witness of a trivial incident which occurred a long wav from my home. I had to motor 170 miles to the magistrates' court for the hearing of that trifling case, and when I got there the defendant pleaded guilty and there was nothing for me to do but to go home again. Unfortunately, defendants can be charged in relation to offences which occur a very long way from their homes.
I should like to reiterate some of the points which have already been made in the debate. The first is that I hope that the warning system to drivers of motor vehicles will continue and that the Bill will not lead to more prosecutions in the minor types of cases. The hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle), whom I congratulate upon his first appearance at the Dispatch Box, said that last year there were 175,000 warnings out of 600,000 cases.

Mr. Royle: In addition to the 600,000
cases.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: It is obvious that a person coming to London can make small mistakes, such as driving in Hyde Park at 30 m.p.h. instead of 20 m.p.h., and it is perfectly proper that such a person should be warned and not be prosecuted for such an offence. I should like an assurance from the Minister that it is intended that that system of warning should continue.
I am puzzled about the procedure relating to the adjournment of the court before the court orders disqualification or imprisonment. There does not appear to be in the Bill any provision for service of notice of the adjournment of the court. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] How it should be done is not explicitly stated. There should be guidance for magistrates and clerks on the exercise of the powers relating to the adjournment of the court. Has the court power to adjourn if it has in mind to impose a very heavy punishment by way of fine rather than imprisonment?

Mr. Royle: Yes.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: Another point relates to the provision of the serving of notice of previous convictions seven days before the hearing of the case. I should like to see the notice of previous convictions served at the same time as the summons. Men who have been driving 10,000 or 20,000 miles a year for, perhaps, forty years come before the court. That is a very high mileage and in the course of his driving history a man may have committed a small number of offences such as exceeding the speed limit and parking in an unauthorised place.
It is only right and proper that a defendant, before making up his mind whether to plead guilty when he receives a summons, should have before him a list of the offences to be taken into account. If he can remember only one offence, he may feel that he can plead guilty with impunity, but if there is quite a long list of minor offences, he should be reminded of them at the time of the receipt of the summons so that he may make up his mind whether to plead guilty. It seems to me that the serving of notice of previous convictions at the same time as the serving of the summons would also save costs, would be easier and would save the time of court officials.
Subject to those minor points, it appears clear that this Bill will simplify procedure. It will save the time of defendants and witnesses, having regard to the fact that we now live in a complicated system of civilisation in which witnesses and defendants may be drawn from all over the country to take part in small cases. On all these grounds, I think this Bill is much required and should go through at the present time.

6.50 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I welcome this Bill because I consider that these changes in the procedure in magistrates' courts are essential if we are to be able to enforce the traffic laws against which motorists offend so frequently.
At present, it is quite impossible for the traffic laws to be enforced, particularly minor traffic laws, such as parking, obstruction, and the like, with which the Bill concerns itself. Unless there is some means, as provided by the Bill, of relieving the police of the necessity of attending courts and of making simpler the procedure for summoning those who commit offences, I do not see how it will be possible to enforce the increasing number of restrictions imposed on motorists because of increasing traffic congestion.
The private motorist, in particular, is the offender because there is a larger number of private motorists concerned with driving vehicles, and that number is increasing very considerably. During the present period of petrol rationing we have seen, in London in particular, a great improvement in traffic conditions generally. In reply to a Question of mine last Wednesday, the Minister of Transport gave in the OFFICIAL REPORT a summary of improvement in these conditions as estimated by the Road Research Laboratory. It was clear from that that there are fewer private cars on the London streets, both in movement and parked, and that that has been responsible for the improvement.
The laboratory found, by taking a sample over the district between Knights-bridge and the City, that whereas the number of goods vehicles had been reduced only very slightly and that buses and taxis had actually increased in volume by 15 per cent, compared with last autumn, before petrol rationing was introduced, there were 36 per cent, fewer private cars on the streets and 28 per cent, fewer private cars parked. It is clear that if the parking restrictions on private vehicles were fully enforced traffic conditions would be substantially improved.
I am sure that the police are willing and anxious to co-operate with the motoring public in enforcing parking and other restrictions, but at present they have an impossible task to fulfil. They are undermanned and it is quite impossible for them to summon all the people who commit these offences. It is also necessary,


in most cases, for the police to confront the driver of a car when he returns to his parked vehicle. That means that police have to patrol the streets and wait for the owners of cars to return to them. That is a terrible waste of the time of the police when they could be occupied in far more valuable and useful duties.
As I understand the Bill, the saving of time of the police in the operation of traffic laws would be very considerable. First, there is the attendance of police at court. The Joint Under-Secretary gave some very convincing figures to show how much time is unnecessarily spent by police waiting in courts—far more time waiting for cases than in giving the necessary evidence.
Secondly, if I understand Clause 2 correctly, it means that it will not be necessary for the police to wait for the return of the owner of the vehicle. The police will be able to take the registration number to ascertain the ownership of the car and, if the owner admits his guilt, he will, at the same time, admit that he was the driver and the case can be dealt with straight away. In that way, considerable time would be saved.
The Samuels Committee, which was appointed to take a survey of parking in inner London, published a Report a few months ago in which it pointed out on the proposal put forward for parking zones, which would include parking meters, that it would be quite impossible effectively to carry out the schemes unless the proposals of the Sharpe Committee were also carried out. The Bill, by implementing the recommendations of the Sharpe Committee, meets the requirements of the Samuels Committee. I am sure that the speed with which the Bill has followed publication of that Report and the enactment of the 1956 Road Traffic Act is a consequence of that. I congratulate the Government on bringing in the Bill at this time and enabling that admirable Report on parking in inner London to be carried out, as is the intention of the Minister.
I shall quote two statements from the Report which make it clear that if we are to implement its recommendations and bring about an improvement in traffic conditions in London more severe restrictions and their enforcement will be essential to the effectiveness of any parking restrictions. The Samuels Committee said:

The effect of parking meters will undoubtedly be to cause more motorists to seek parking space on restricted streets where there are no meters and, unless enforcement in these streets is from the start really effective, the whole system will fail in its object. It is no secret that enforcement of the character we envisage as necessary, if parking meters are to be a success, simply does not take place today …
The police are unable to enforce the conditions. Often a sign saying "No Waiting" or "No Parking" is a temptation to a motorist to draw up to the side of the road and leave his vehicle there.
The second quotation I make from the Report is:
… the extent to which the success of parking meters is bound up with the effectiveness of enforcement elsewhere, and that effectiveness may well hang on the rapidity with which the Sharpe reforms are implemented.
In the view of these experts who investigated parking conditions in central London, the recommendations of the Sharpe Committee, now being implemented by this Bill, were essential. Enforcement must be universal. It is no good simply enforcing regulations about parking meters, which this Bill simplifies; it is essential to have enforcement of restrictions on the side streets and elsewhere, where no enforcement takes place today.
I do not wish to exaggerate the effects of the Bill in relation to traffic conditions in London, but it seems to me that it will prove helpful in present circumstances. It will prove helpful in assisting the police to ensure obedience to the parking laws, and it will make experiments and extensions of parking schemes worth while. It is no use attempting to impose more restrictions on the motoring public, because such restrictions will be ignored if they are not enforced, and as long as it is possible for people to park their cars in central London or other urban areas they will bring their cars in and clutter up the streets. Enforcement of the law will be a deterrent to people bringing in cars, because they will find parking difficult and they will know that if they infringe the law they will suffer a penalty.
The advantage to the motorist of sufficient enforcement of the law and of adequate parking schemes is that it will not be necessary to impose greater restrictions, such as the banning of cars in central London, which some people


advocate, and which would certainly be adopted only as a last resort.
I welcome the Bill because of the contribution which it can make, in its small way, to improved traffic conditions in London. Far greater measures, with which the Bill has nothing to do, are necessary, but the Bill, although its field is limited, is welcome because of the reforms in the procedure of magistrates' courts which it brings about.

7.2 p.m.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I like the Bill. It creates expedition and pursues a policy of "fines, not crimes". It avoids trivialities. Also, it is v/ell timed. That is all admirable. In the matter of expedition, it is admirable from the point of view of the police. It will save not only the police but the bench a great deal of time and will enable both the bench and the police to turn their attention to other more important cases and that will benefit the public. It will also save the time of the public, none of whom wants to go to court.
However, there is one thing about the Bill which I do not think my hon. and learned Friend intended. It is also a most attractive charter for prostitutes. In future, prostitutes will not have to go through the degrading spectacle at Bow Street and Marlborough Street on certain days of the week, as they do at present.

Mr. H. Hynd: Is that the case? Would not a prostitute be brought to the court on a charge? Surely the provision refers only to summonses.

Mr. Rees-Davies: No. If I am correct, I think that the prostitute will be dealt with by means of a summons in respect of which the maximum fine is 40s. Therefore, a prostitute will be served with a notice and her previous record. Therefore, I feel that the Bill will be a charter for pimps and prostitutes. It may be that in the not-far-distant future the House will consider that matter and whether these penalties should not be reviewed.
However it may be, we are all in this together. I think it will be found that the public, the motorists, the bench, the publicans, the prostitutes, the good citizens and the bad, will all welcome the Bill for its proposals for expedition. I

welcome the Bill because I believe that it puts into the right perspective what are regarded by the public as trivial offences for which there are fines—not those which ought to be called "crimes"—and may prevent a great deal of unattractive local publicity for people in respect of offences which they very often cannot avoid.
The timing of the Bill is superb. I congratulate the Home Office on having borne that in mind, together with the Ministry of Transport, over the past twelve months. We discussed the question of fines on the spot during the Committee stage of the Road Traffic Act last year. I believe the Bill will meet the position in the immediate future. I still think, however, that the day will come when the purely penalty issue of a fine for using a parking place for too long will require a penalty to be exacted on the spot, more in the nature of a civil penalty than anything with any type of criminal background to it. The Bill is admirably timed because it comes forward when we are anticipating the installation of parking meters in the summer or the autumn. It will act as a very effective weapon meanwhile.
If one is to use collectors, and collectors mainly in relation to parking meters, who are more in the nature of debt collectors than the police are—I believe that is the intention—it may well be that in time we shall have to consider whether some type of automatic penalty should not be collected in respect of the misuse of a parking place by using it for too long a period. I feel that we should be wise to reserve our position about that, and that we should not commit ourselves entirely at the moment as to the long-term policy.
I listened attentively to the observations of the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), who has had a long experience as a member of a bench. I would not—nor would any of my hon. Friends who have spoken—support the Bill if I felt that it would lead to any injustice. It appears to me to be admirably drafted. It has every effective safeguard that is needed. One safeguard relates to anyone driving under the influence of drink. I do not want to fall into the trap concerning whether or not a man is drunk, and I do not want to follow the dissertation of the right hon. Member for South Shields on whether they drive with their boots clean or not.


I merely want to say that it is plain that where a disqualification or a sentence of imprisonment is to be imposed there is a categorical provision in Clause I that the accused shall attend before any such question arises. There is complete discretion on the part of the bench to reserve a case where it seeks to impose a high fine, which it would no doubt do in most cases. If it seeks to impose a very high fine, there is a right of appeal to a higher court.
The situation arises under the Bill only if a person pleads guilty. He is not obliged to do so. I rather agreed with the practical point put by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) that one wants to know one's history before one decides whether or not to plead guilty. Certainly, counsel or a solicitor advising someone pays a great deal of regard to his client's previous record before arriving at a decision. I am not sure that it is practicable for the record to be delivered with the summons. Administratively, it might be extremely difficult to do so in every case.
However, I should like to put a practical suggestion to the Minister. I would ask him carefully to consider treating trivial offences of parking, speeding and so on in much the same way as licence endorsements are dealt with, in that after three years the slate is wiped clean. It has always seemed grossly unfair to me that reference should be made to one's offences sixteen years previously. A good stipendiary magistrate takes no account of offences after a certain time has elapsed. I do not ask that that should be done in the form of legislation. It would not be right, but I would invite my hon. and learned Friend to consider whether there should not be that encouragement through the police, by the known methods of the Home Office, so that in cases of that kind a reasonable period of time should be prescribed after which a further increased penalty should not attach.
I suggest that three to five years would be a reasonable period to go back in cases of that kind. I do so in the presence of, and with all respect to, a number of hon. and right hon. Gentlemen who might like to take up and consider this point, and who have infinitely greater experience than I have.

7.11 p.m.

Mr. H. Hynd: May I take up straight away three points raised by the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies)? First, I thoroughly agree with him on the possible time limit in regard to various offences, and I should like to assure the hon. Gentleman that not only stipendiary magistrates' courts have a time limit in regard to previous offences, but that at least one bench of magistrates, on which I have the honour to serve, also has.
The hon. Gentleman also suggested that it would be desirable, where possible, for the list of previous convictions to be sent to the accused person along with the summons. I am not sure that I agree with that suggestion, for the reason that I think the summonses should be sent as early as possible after the offence. If the summons is to be held up until the police are ready with the list of previous convictions, I think that that would be a bad thing.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I said that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) who suggested it and that, although I found it at first attractive, I did not think that it was administratively practicable.

Mr. Hynd: I am glad that we are in agreement on that.
The third point to which I want to refer is the assurance given to my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede) in regard to cases of "driving under the influence." That, of course, would not come in the Bill at all, because there is a period of imprisonment of four months attached to it. Therefore, that would be outside the scope of the Bill, and we need not worry about it.

Mr. Ede: I never said it would. I only brought it in as an example of the way in which the law has been altered since the arrival of the internal combustion engine as the golden calf of the modern age.

Mr. Hynd: May I join with other hon. Members in offering my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Member for Sal-ford, West (Mr. Royle) on his maiden speech from the Dispatch Box? I disagree with one hon. Member who expressed the hope that he would see him there often: I hope that my hon. Friend will be at the other Box, not this one.
I am one of those who welcome the Bill. Indeed, I have a feeling that I may be to a small extent responsible for it, because, arising our of my own experience in seeing so many police attending a magistrates' court, I raised the question as far back as December, 1952. Sir David Maxwell Fyfe, as he then was, was Home Secretary, and I confess that, somewhat to my surprise, my question met with a very sympathetic response. Indeed, it transpired that the Home Secretary had already set up a Departmental Committee in 1951 to go into the question of the waste of time by police officers in attending at magistrates' courts to give evidence in uncontested cases. At that time, I was concerned only with motoring offences, such as speeding and parking. We have had the Report of the Committee, and subsequently the Bill has gone beyond that, and I am very pleased that it has been found possible.
When I repeated the question a year later, in December, 1953, I was told that the Working Party had reported. No time was wasted by the Home Office, because in March, 1954, a circular was issued to magistrates' courts which not all magistrates' courts adopted. However, some of them did, and I am glad to say that the court with which I am associated did so. From what I have heard this afternoon, it seems that we have operated a large portion of what is now proposed in this Bill. Some courts have carried on under the old system, but we have done our best to save the time, at any rate, of the defendants, although it was not possible to do anything about saving the time of the police.
This Departmental Committee, which was set up under the chairmanship of Sir Reginald Sharpe, drew attention to the waste of time of the police in a very graphic way, which was referred to by the Minister, although I think it would be useful if I read into the record exactly what was said about it. The Report said this:
A check was kept on five consecutive days from Monday, 29th November to Friday, 3rd December, 1954, at all Magistrates' courts in the Metropolitan Police District. During that period it was disclosed that 3,556 hours of police time were spent in attending the Courts in connection with 1,410 cases in which defendants pleaded guilty. This represents a daily average of 711 hours, or the equivalent

of the full time of 89 policemen each day. In 993 of these cases, involving 2.372 hours, the defendant could not himself appear but sent a letter pleading guilty. An analysis of the 1,410 cases referred to in which there was a plea of guilty discloses that 1,346, or 95 per cent, of them were for motoring offences.
I was surprised to find that the time amounted to the equivalent of the time of eighty-nine policemen, for my own impression was that it involved many more police than that. However, we cannot argue with statistics.

Mr. Rees-Davies: Full-time.

Mr. Hynd: Yes, full-time, but even then I should have thought that it would have involved more than the full time of eighty-nine policemen from what I have seen in the courts day after day.
One point which I do not think has been mentioned is that many of the police have had to attend the court after coming off night duty. I think it is pretty hard on the police, in addition to the fact that they were being taken away from other more important duties.
At the court at which I have the honour to serve, we have an average of something like 50 speeding cases a week, and we have given the defendants the opportunity of sending a letter to plead guilty, thereby saving their time and the time of any witnesses whom they might want to bring along. But it still means that the police have had to go into the witness box and give their statements of what happened before we could legally find the person accused guilty and impose the necessary penalty. With other hon. Members, I shudder to think of what might happen when parking meters get under way and we get a flood of cases from that.
If the police can be released from some of these court duties, they might at any rate be able to overtake some of the work which they have not been able to do up to now. I would give one example. I think it is fairly generally known that no summonses are being issued in connection with the illegal use of radio sets in motor cars. I should imagine that the number of motorists who have licences for radio sets in their cars is not very high, yet the police are so overwhelmed with other work that they are not able, at any rate, in the London district, I am informed, to attempt to prosecute in these cases.
I should also like to mention that, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West, and, I think, also the hon. Member for the Isle of Thanet, have said that this Bill would save the time of the magistrates, I myself am not so sure that it will. The magistrates who have been using the shortened procedure under the 1954 circular of the Home Office have been able to deal with these cases of speeding much more quickly, and I should imagine that, by the time we have read these various documents in the court, we shall not save very much of the magistrates' time. Indeed, it may take a little longer under this procedure than is possible under that provided in the 1954 circular.
However, it is not the magistrates' time which is of greatest importance. The time of the police is of more importance, because the police have important duties and we all know that the police forces in London and in the provinces are badly under-staffed. From a magistrate's point of view, I am satisfied that adequate safeguards for defendants are provided throughout the Bill. That, of course, is the important thing.
I want to ask one or two questions which the Joint Under-Secretary might be good enough to consider before Committee stage with a view to possible Amendments. I want, first, to return to my interjection. I made it with some temerity as I was interrupting a lawyer. It was whether there is a difference between a summons and a charge. In my innocence, I have always imagined that there was a difference and when the Bill specifically mentioned summonses I imagined that that meant anything that was the subject of a charge would not come within the Bill. However, I should like to be advised about that by the hon. and learned Gentleman and, if there is anything in that point, perhaps it will be considered.
I have already mentioned the possibility of a time limit for previous convictions, but there is a more serious aspect which worries me. It is that if in every case we are to send a list of the accused's previous convictions to his address, there is a danger that the list may be seen by people who should not see it. The procedure for the serving of a summons is not always very clear. It may be sent

by registered post, it may be served personally, or it may be left at the last known address. I can see possible dangers and the criticism that the lists of previous convictions will be seen by people who might make a wrong use of them. I should be very glad if the hon. and learned Gentleman would see whether something could be done about it.
I see no difficulty at all about the doubts expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields about whether the bench should have any knowledge of previous convictions before announcing the penalty in a case tried under the procedure laid down in the Bill. After all, the chairman of the bench at quarter sessions always has the previous record before him. In any event, the person concerned has written to plead guilty so that that knowledge could not possibly influence the minds of the magistrates. I see very little difficulty about that.
There is one snag about motoring offences where we might not be able to save the time of the police. In my experience, very often a block of speeding cases is handled by a solicitor representing one of the motoring organisations. It is a very good thing that a motorist should have this protection and should have that legal representation, but what happens in practice? A solicitor has this block of cases and says, "I appear in this case," and that is about all he has to say. He must earn his money very easily.
I say this with some temerity in the presence of solicitors, because this is taking the bread and butter out of their mouths, but, after all, there will not be very much difference between this block representation, where very little needs to be said, and a defendant writing a letter admitting his guilt. Nevertheless, where we have these block cases represented by a solicitor from a motoring organisation, presumably the police will have to be present in court in force and police officers will have to stand in the witness box to give formal evidence lasting for a second or two. I wonder whether the hon. and learned Gentleman has thought of that and whether he can see a solution.
Another matter which was raised earlier is that the Bill does not apply to cases in the juvenile court and yet there may be a case where two young fellows


are charged with a motoring offence, one being just over seventeen and one just under. I believe that in such cases, where the two are charged together, they would both appear in the adult court and the procedure of the Bill would, therefore, apply. I should like a ruling on that.
Subject to those questions, I have very great pleasure in supporting the Bill. I do not believe that it will have the harmful effects which my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields suggested. After all, magistrates who have been appointed in recent times have had the advantage of the new procedure of some tuition given through the Magistrates' Association. That is tuition which they did not have before. It is an advance and procedure is now far better understood.

Mr. Ede: My hon. Friend is obviously directing his remarks to me on the ground that that applies to magistrates who have been recently appointed. I was appointed as long ago as 1920. Let me say that a little knowledge gained at one of those courses can be a very dangerous thing when applied to the bench.

Mr. Hynd: Of course, we all have great respect for the long experience and knowledge of my right hon. Friend, but I think he will agree with me that it is better that magistrates should have some knowledge at the beginning rather than no knowledge. At any rate, that is some advance.

7.27 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Irvine: I will detain the House for only a few minutes, because the matters which arise under the Bill have been very fully discussed. This is a Measure designed to reduce the expense, the time and the formalities which attend legal proceedings and as such it has to be watched very carefully so that we may be quite sure that those savings do not result at any point in undue casualness in the administration of justice.
I have no critical comments to make about Clause 1 and Clause 2, but I am anxious about Clause 3. I feel that larger questions arise under Clause 3 than have hitherto been considered by the House. Where there are several previous convictions, even for minor offences, a point comes when it is desirable to require the

attendance of the defendant in court. That is a factor in cases where there is a succession of previous convictions, of which the Bill loses sight. It may become very desirable in those instances, although only minor offences are affected, that the accused should be present in court. If the accused is not there it will still often be desirable for the bench, before passing a sentence which reflects the previous convictions, to receive a fuller statement of the facts than that which has been sent to the accused. The magistrates are
not under the dispensation which the Bill contemplates—

Mr. Simon: They are free to get it, provided they adjourn, but not without adjournment.

Mr. Irvine: I appreciate that by adjournment they can, but in a whole host of instances where there have been many previous convictions and the accused has not been present there will be a disposition to be rid of the matter that day. I say that, although no one has a higher regard than I have for magistrates' services.
The position is envisaged in which the appropriate sentence cannot be determined that day upon any more information than the list of previous convictions and the statement of facts which has been sent to the defendant. The suggestion rather is that the magistrates will think in terms of an automatic, actuarial increase in sentence based upon the scale of the previous convictions. Magistrates should still have regard to all the circumstances. No matter how considerable the list of the previous convictions, they ought to have regard to all the circumstances of the particular case. Some of these may be outside the statement of facts which has been sent to the accused and not admissible.
I agree with the hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke), although for reasons which I regard as different from his, that it is desirable, if practicable, that the summons should be accompanied by the list of convictions. I do not like the idea of a man sending in his intimation to the court of a desire to plead "Guilty" to an offence and then receiving immediately thereafter a notice as to the previous convictions which may be taken into account.

7.33 p.m.

Sir Frank Soskice: Let me say, at the outset, what pleasure I feel in rising from the side of my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) to follow in the footsteps which he traced in appreciating the Bill. All hon. Members on both sides felt, I am sure, that the speech was admirable. There is very little I can add to what he said, as he so perfectly expressed my views.
This little Bill has been subjected to a minute analysis by hon. Members on both sides. They have, with the sole exception of my right hon. Friend the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), welcomed its advent. I join with them and disagree with my right hon. Friend. The introduction of the Bill is, in my view, a measure of elementary common sense.
In the magistrates' courts it has for years been the experience of those who have had occasion to resort there in any capacity that they have regretted what has seemed to be a dreadful waste of time. I was glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd) referred to the fact that many police officers have to go straight from night duty to wait, perhaps for the whole morning and sometimes the whole day, only to hear the accused person plead "Guilty". Their attendance might have been dispensed with had provisions such as we are now considering been on the Statute Book. I therefore cordially welcome this step which the Government have taken.
I would call attention to one or two features of the Bill. Clause 1 was spoken of by the hon. Member for Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies); he raised the question of the offences that fall within its scope. This is a topic on which I would follow him. We have been discussing the Measure upon the basis that it relates solely to motoring offences of a trivial character.

Mr. Simon: Mr. Simon indicated dissent.

Sir F. Soskice: The Minister shakes his head. I know that it does not do so in terms, but I think that it has been generally assumed that the objective of the Bill is to obviate unnecessary waste of time in the consideration before magistrates' Courts of motor offences of little importance.
We have all been assuming that, on both sides of the House, although, as the

Minister indicated by the shake of his head which I observed a moment ago, the Clause is not limited to offences of that sort. It relates to offences where proceedings have been initiated by summons and which are offences not also
triable on indictment" 
or offences in respect of which
the accused is liable to be sentenced to be imprisoned for a term exceeding three months.
The Sharpe Committee gave considerable consideration to the scope which should be adopted for Clause 1. They agreed with the views which the Government have adopted in framing their Clause and rejected the alternatives, one of which was to limit offences to those under the Road Traffic Acts. The other alternative was to list offences in a summary contained in a Schedule to the Bill. I would ask the Government to give further consideration to this question.
I am not at all sure that the Government are right. I am not asserting my opinion that they are wrong, because the matter has obviously been carefully considered. Speaking for myself, I should have thought the objective which was being compassed was to deal with these offences which it could not be said involved any moral turpitude on the part of the guilty person.
I can think of a number of offences which might be within the scope of the Clause as to which there may be danger about applying this new, summary method of process. There is the case of a man travelling with intent to avoid payment of a fare, an offence in which a dishonest purpose must be established. If a person is convicted of it he has a serious black mark against his character for years. It may result in his losing his employment. Other offences of the character of malicious damage may involve an element of serious moral condemnation. It is at least open to question whether this type of rapid, summary process should be available in respect of those kinds of offence.
Another offence which I would mention in this context is that of careless driving as distinct from dangerous driving. I should imagine that offence to come within the scope of Clause 1, but if one considers the very large number of persons who make their living by driving vehicles, such as commercial vehicles, it is clear that a conviction for


careless driving is serious in their case. It is not a matter to be laughed off. It might, in certain circumstances, even affect their employment.
I therefore throw out for consideration the question whether the Government are right in including offences such as careless driving within the scope of Clause 1. That is, perhaps, a matter which could more appropriately be considered in Committee, but I put it forward as one which is possibly deserving of further review and consideration when we reach the Committee stage.
I turn to a point which was raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Salford, West and in respect of which I must confess that I felt very much disposed to agree with him. I do not think that I have heard an answer in the debate to the point which he made. As paragraph (ii) of Clause 1 (2) reads, it would seem that the magistrate or magistrates, if he or they decide to accept the plea of guilty, will, after arriving at that decision and not until that time, read out, under the terms of this part of the proviso, the statement of facts and the accused's intimation of his readiness to plead guilty.
Surely, as my hon. Friend said, that is hardly desirable. As many hon. Members have said, the conception that justice must be public, unless there is the strongest reason in an individual case for it to be otherwise, is so deeply engrained in our concept of judicial propriety that one would have thought that here is a departure from that principle which is not altogether easy to understand or justify.
The Minister will, I hope, correct me if I am wrong in thinking that what these words contemplate, in that part of the proviso to which I have called attention, is that when the matter comes before the court, the magistrates will read the statement of facts first, I presume silently to themselves, and will consider the intimation which in the assumed case has been received from the accused that he is prepared to plead guilty to a charge founded on those facts; and when they have performed that process, which, I assume, will be done silently among themselves, if I have correctly understood the working of the Bill, they will then announce their intention. They are then enjoined by these words, at that stage and not before, to read out the statement of facts.
It seems to me that that is not a very satisfactory process. It gives the impression, or it might give the impression—and it is an impression which, under no circumstances, ought ever to be contemplated for a moment—that something is being read which is not made public and divulged to everybody present in court. The lurking suspicion might grow that something has been considered or read, under the desk, shall I say, before the decision is pronounced.
There is, I think, a danger that a little uneasiness may develop amongst those who are present when this proceeding is gone through. I should have thought that it is an uneasiness which should be avoided. I wonder whether there is any reason why the statement of facts should not first be read before the magistrates announce their decision whether they will accept the plea of guilty. No doubt the Government have considered this question, as I think the Sharpe Committee also considered it, but I put it forward as a matter which could perhaps be further explored in Committee.
I, and, I think, probably most hon. Members, if not all, have received what seems to be a most helpful document from the Standing Joint Committee of the Royal Automobile Club, the Automobile Association and the Royal Scottish Automobile Club. I should like to put to the Minister some points which that Committee makes. When one looks at paragraph (iii), of Clause 1 (2) one sees that if the court decides to convict the accused it must not proceed to punish him without adjourning if it contemplates a punishment consisting of any imprisonment, detention or disqualification.
The document to which I have referred puts the view that perhaps it would be desirable to add to that category of punishments what the Standing Joint Committee describes in general terms as severe lines and heavy fines. In that respect I agree with the Standing Joint Committee. I should have thought that a case might well arise in which a person who has been summoned for an offence of this sort thinks, and perhaps is rather led to think by the notice that he receives, that the matter is trivial and could be easily disposed of by the admission on his part of the facts which are brought to his notice in the indication which he is given on the


facts. He may readily plead guilty, expecting that there may be only a small fine.
His views may not coincide, however, with the views formed by the bench when it considers his indication that he is ready to plead guilty. The Minister says it often happens—indeed, it very often happens—that those who have committed an offence think they might be more gently fined than is, in fact, the case. Circumstances may therefore arise in which a person who pleads guilty receives what he considers to be a swingeing fine, which may give rise to ill-feeling among persons who feel that, in these circumstances, they have been unfairly dealt with and perhaps misled by the intimation given to them that they might plead guilty, if they wished, to a certain set of stated facts brought to their notice.

Mr. H. Hynd: In such a case, the defendant always has the right to appeal to a higher court.

Sir F. Soskice: That is perfectly true. He can appeal. But I think that experience not infrequently brings out that it is not easy for a person, especially if he is of limited means, to go through the motions of instructing legal representatives to appeal purely on the question of penalty. It is somewhat hard sometimes to put him to that necessity.
I am simply asking whether the Government cannot devise words which would require that the magistrates should not proceed to the infliction of a severe fine, whatever the appropriate definition of "severe fine" would be in that context, without an adjournment. I simply put it forward as a matter which could be further explored in Committee and which has occasioned doubt in other quarters than this House, as I have indicated.
I turn to Clause 1 (3) which provides, if I correctly understand it, that in the case of any adjournment, whether it is an adjournment because the magistrates are not prepared to convict and, therefore, adjourn under subsection (1, b), or whether it is an adjournment on the ground that they feel disposed to inflict a sentence of imprisonment or a like punishment, the reasons for the adjournment must be given in the notice that the adjournment is to take place. I should have thought that it might be desirable in the terms of the Bill to indicate what sort of reasons are intended.
The words in the Bill are:
shall include notice of the reason for the adjournment.
Those words can be interpreted strictly or they can be interpreted generously and. particularly having regard to what I have said, I should have thought that words should be chosen in the Bill which would make it necessary for the justices or the magistrates to state particular grounds—to state that they propose to adjourn on the ground that they feel that this is a case in which they think there should be a sentence of imprisonment or a case in which they think there may be reason to suppose that the accused person has not correctly understood the situation or something of that kind. I would suggest that those words should perhaps be further considered in Committee.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies) raised what I thought was an important point about Clause 2. He said that upon his understanding of the Bill there would be two types of saving of time for the police. One, he said, was the saving of time which would result from their not having to attend when the case came on for trial; and the other was that which would result from a policeman not having to wait until the owner of a car came back to the car, supposing that the police officer thought it was a case in which there should be a prosecution for leaving a car unattended in such a way as to cause an obstruction. I should be grateful if the Minister would indicate whether my hon. Friend and I are right.

Mr. Simon: Mr. Simon indicated dissent.

Sir F. Soskice: The Minister shakes his head, but it is an important point and the House would be grateful for further enlightenment on the subject.
I suppose my hon. Friend was apprehending circumstances in which a policeman saw a car left unattended, and saw that it had been left for an unreasonable time, and he would not have to wait until the owner came back, but would cause a notice to be served on the registered owner of the car requiring information about the person in charge of the car on the particular occasion. If an answer were given in response to that requirement by the police officer, the answer could be used in evidence. If that is so, I should have thought that my hon. Friend was


right in saying that there should be that twofold saving of time and I should be grateful for a word of enlightenment from the Minister about whether our understanding of the intended working of Clause 2 be right or not.
There is a final point which I should like to cull from the memorandum of the Standing Joint Committee to which I have referred. It is concerned with the method of service which would have to be adopted for serving on the accused person the notice of adjournment, in the case of proceedings which magistrates decided to adjourn, and also the notice of a proposal to read the list of previous convictions. Those two documents will have to be served under the terms of the Bill upon the accused person, and the memorandum raises the question about how those notices should be served.
Rule 76 of the Magistrates' Courts Rules of 1952 prescribe three methods of service and I have no doubt that the Minister will have them in mind. I should have hoped that he would have been able to say the method of service, without my going into the technicalities of the rule, which would be requisite in the case of these two notices would be a method of service which would be effective only if it was established perfectly clearly that the accused person had received them.
Under sub-paragraph (2) of the rule to which I have just adverted there is a provision that a notice shall not be effective unless there is some evidence, in the form of a letter or something of that sort, showing that the defendant in a particular case actually got the notice. The Standing Joint Committee suggests that that requirement should be requisite in the case of both the notices to which I have referred. I should have thought that to be a view very well grounded. I hope that the Government will adopt it and that we may hear something about that from the Minister.
Those are the further suggestions I wish to add to the many suggestions which have been made in this debate. I hope that the Joint Under-Secretary, if he is given leave to address the House again, or the Solicitor-General, if he is to reply, would be so good as to satisfy our craving for information on those various points. Perhaps the Solicitor-General is

not going to reply. I draw that conclusion. I take it that probably—I fear that I have awakened the right hon. and learned Gentleman—the Minister will probably ask for the indulgence of the House in order to address hon. Members again, and I hope he will. I hope that the House will grant him that indulgence so that our curiosity may be satisfied on the various points to which I have referred.

7.55 p.m.

Mr. Simon: I ask the indulgence of the House to reply to the very helpful points raised in the debate. If I do not respond to them all, it is merely because in some cases they are points which we should like to consider before the Committee stage, and I propose only to deal with the main points. First, I should like to thank the House for the reception given to the Bill. It has been welcomed by every right hon. and hon. Member, except for the right hon. Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede). The right hon. Gentleman, in a fine, vintage, crusted Tory speech, which warmed my heart, even if it did not convince my judgment, stood alone in disliking the provisions of the Bill. But even the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the Government were virtually bound to bring it in; but rather than have the Bill brought in, he would have preferred to see the abolition or suspension of the internal combustion engine.
I should also like to congratulate—as have so many other right hon. and hon. Members—the hon. Member for Salford, West (Mr. Royle) on his speech from the Opposition Dispatch Box. It was made with the courtesy and constructiveness that we have learned to expect from the hon. Gentleman when he speaks from the back benches, and it was a great joy to hear him speaking officially for the Opposition. The hon. Gentleman raised a point, which was taken up by the hon. Member for Accrington (Mr. H. Hynd), about what happens where an adult and a juvenile are accused of joint complicity in an offence. It is proposed, the Government having decided—I think with the universal approbation of the House—to except proceedings in the juvenile courts from the terms of the Bill, that a circular shall be sent to the courts and police recommending that the new procedure be not applied Where a juvenile


and an adult are charged jointly and tried in an adult court. I think that is what the hon. Member for Accrington suggested should be done, and that is our intention.
The hon. Member for Salford, West also dealt with the question of warnings, which was taken up by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke). I am able to say that it is not intended that the provisions of the Bill shall derogate from the present system the police use of issuing warnings in suitable cases. The hon. Member for Salford, West then dealt with the question of tines, which was taken up from a rather different angle by my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham and the right hon. and learned Member for Newport (Sir F. Soskice). Regarding the point of the hon. Member for Salford, West about whether the Bill would interfere with the present system whereby the court tempers the fine according to the means of the accused, the answer is that it does not. The provisions in Section 31 of the Magistrates' Courts Act, 1952, will apply to cases under this Bill; that in fixing the amount of the fine, the magistrates' court shall take into consideration, among other things, the means of the person on whom the fine is imposed, so far as they appear or are known to the court.
I think I can answer the question which the hon. Member for Salford, West may be about to put to me as to how the court can know anything about the means of a defendant if the defendant does not appear. The court is in the same position under the Bill as it would be under the existing procedure where the defendant does not appear and the prosecution have to bring their witnesses. The answer is that in a case where the court is undecided and the means of the accused may well be relevant, the court, I apprehend, will certainly adjourn for evidence of means, as I think I am right in saying courts do at the moment.

Mr. H. Hynd: Will advice to that effect be included in the proposed circular to magistrates' courts?

Mr. Simon: I do not want to give a categorical answer, but the hon. Gentleman's suggestion will certainly be borne in mind.
The right hon. and learned Member for Newport and my hon. Friend the Member

for Twickenham dealt with the question of heavy fines. That was considered both by the Government and by the Sharpe Committee, and it was decided that the difficulties of definition were almost insuperable, particularly as a heavy fine in the case of a man of one type of means is very different from a heavy fine in the case of another man. It was for that reason that the Sharpe Committee—and the Government have endorsed this—decided that we should only draw the line at imprisonment, detention and disqualification; but wherever the court is going to impose a heavy fine—a fine that is heavy in all the circumstances of the case—I take it that in that case the court would certainly adjourn for the presence of the accused man, as my hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet (Mr. Rees-Davies) pointed out. As the hon. Member for Accrington further pointed out, there is the provision for appeal where the court is thought by the accused to be in error.

Mr. Ede: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman deal with the question of an appeal? When the case gets before an appeals committee of quarter sessions, will that be an ordinary hearing in which evidence which was not before the lower court can be brought in, or will it merely be a rehearing of what was heard below?

Mr. Simon: The proceedings before quarter sessions are, of course, a rehearing. I do not want to give a snap answer to that, but I should have said myself that that would be outside the provisions of the Bill because they apply only where a summons has been issued, and these proceedings would be initiated by different process. I should like to consider that point further, and perhaps we can reconsider it in Committee.
The right hon. and learned Member for Newport and the hon. Member for Salford, West criticised the procedure whereby there is first a reading of the documents silently in court by the magistrates, and then the documents after an intimation of conviction are read out. The procedure in the Bill was laid down with good reason, but I do not think it would be profitable if I were to rehearse those reasons at the moment because my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor indicated in another place that we had taken note of the criticisms of that procedure, which have been so


cogently put forward this evening, and the Government will reconsider the procedure before the Committee stage. I could, if the House wished, give the reasons that support the present procedure as laid down in the Bill, but I do not think it would be necessary in view of the undertaking, and perhaps we can discuss the matter further in Committee.
I now want to turn to the right hon. Member for South Shields. He first of all drew attention to the matter of previous convictions. I can state quite categorically that under the Bill the court cannot consider previous convictions until the court has determined to convict. The matter arises in this way. First of all, let me deal with the initiation of the notice; of previous convictions which was raised by a number of hon. Members in cluding my hon. Friends the Members for the Isle of Thanet and for Twickenham, and the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine). Those hon. Members wished that notice of previous conviction should be served at the same time as the summons, with the object that nobody should plead until he knew what previous convictions were alleged against
him. That is administratively virtually impossible—

Mr. Ede: Mr. Ede indicated assent.

Mr. Simon: I am glad to see that the right hon. Gentleman approves.

Mr. Ede: I do not approve; I think it is inevitable.

Mr. Simon: That, I know, is as far as one can go with the right hon. Gentleman in his present mood of disapproving the present age. But at any rate, that is some comfort. The reason was given by the hon. Member for Accrington, namely, that it is essential that a summons should be served as early as possible after the offence. At that time the prosecutor may not have the evidence of the previous convictions because the previous convictions may be only at the disposal of the police authority at the place where the accused man resides, and not at the place where the offence was committed and where the prosecution will be brought. Therefore, in some cases it will be necessary to serve the notice of previous conviction after the summons. There is no central register of convictions of this type.
But there is sufficient safeguard, I think, to meet the point that was made by the hon. Member for Edge Hill and by my hon. Friends the Members for the Isle of Thanet and Twickenham, because the accused can at any time up to the trial withdraw his plea of guilty. If, having had brought to his recollection what had previously been veiled by a merciful oblivion, a long list of previous offences, he realises then that he was very ill-advised in making a plea which might be visited in the circumstances by very heavy penalties, all he has got to do is to withdraw his plea; and indeed it is our intention that he should be informed of his right to do so in the notice which is sent to him. In that respect we propose to follow the type of form that the Sharpe Committee recommended.
If he does that, the court knows nothing of the previous convictions. Nor, indeed, does the court know anything of the previous convictions which are in the hands of the prosecutor only and not in the hands of the members of the court until they have decided to convict, because, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Mr. Doughty) pointed out, the opening words of Clause 3 are:
Where a person is convicted…
It is only where a person is convicted that the evidence of previous convictions is admissible under this procedure, just as much as under the existing law.

Mr. Ede: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman help me in another matter? Who is to serve this notice on the defendant—the prosecutor or the clerk of the court?

Mr. Simon: The prosecutor. If the right hon. Gentleman will look at the form on page 48 of the Departmental Committee's Report, he will see that it is signed "(for) Chief Constable". We intend to follow that form.

Mr. Ede: At the time when the magistrates are considering the matter in order to make up their minds whether or not they are going to accept the plea of guilty, the clerk of the court will not know that a notice has been served giving a list of previous convictions.

Mr. Simon: That is so. There is no reason why that should come to his knowledge in any way. The procedure for serving notice of previous convictions is outside the cognisance of the clerk of the court and of the court itself.
Some misgivings were voiced, mainly by the right hon. and learned Gentleman, about the scope of Clause 1 of the Bill. It was, of course, very carefully considered by the Sharpe Committee, and I must say that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was almost alone in wishing to see it further restricted. My hon. Friend the Member for the Isle of Thanet referred to the case of prostitutes and procurers, strikingly describing the Bill as a "charter for prostitutes and pimps". They will not, I think, get the benefit of this procedure. Normally, they would be arrested and charged. Anyone who is arrested is outside the scope of the Bill. That, I think, answers also the question which the hon. Member for Accrington specifically asked me to deal with. It is only on summons, when the proceedings are initiated by summons, that this procedure applies, and not when proceedings are initiated by warrant. The procedure is at the initiative of the prosecution, and it seems most unlikely that the prosecution would agree to it being used in the type of case to which my hon. Friend referred.

Mr. Rees-Davies: I am much obliged to my hon. and learned Friend for giving way. This is an important matter; I should not otherwise venture to put it to him. In the overwhelming proportion of cases in London of charges of soliciting, a fine is imposed; in hundreds of these cases, the maximum fine of 40s. is imposed. There is an unattractive and sordid sight to be seen in the courts every day of the week. Would it not be far better if these girls were summoned and, in that way, this rigmarole could be consigned to the oblivion to which my hon. and learned Friend has rightly consigned other matters?

Mr. Simon: My hon. Friend will certainly not expect me to answer that question, because it goes far beyond the scope of the Bill and, in any event, it is under active investigation by the Wolfenden Committee. He will excuse me from answering whether the procedure should be altered so as to bring it within the Bill.

Mr. Rees-Davies: The Bill has power to do it, though.

Mr. Simon: The hon. Member for Accrington referred to cases where a solicitor appears for the motoring organisations, and asked whether the prosecution would have to have its witnesses there in such circumstances. It seems to me that the procedure under the Bill would not be invoked in such cases. The procedure would be exactly the same as the present practice when a solicitor appears. With the procedure under the Bill being available, we think that it is less likely that accused persons will appear by a solicitor, and we hope that, in a substantial number of cases where they intend to plead guilty, whether they will appear by a solicitor or not, they will use the procedure under the Bill.

Mr. H. Hynd: Perhaps the motoring organisations, being well disposed and public-minded bodies, might take the opportunity to advise their members to use this procedure.

Mr. Simon: I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He will remember that, in the form suggested by the Sharpe Committee, the notice ends:
If you intend to appear by counsel or solicitor, you would be well advised to consult your solicitor before writing to the court.
We hope that in that type of case, where there will be a plea, the solicitor will advise that the procedure under the Bill might be used.

Mr. Geoffrey Wilson: Section 1 (2) specifically says that the clerk of the court may receive
a notification in writing purporting to be given by the accused or by a solicitor acting on his behalf…
Would not the motoring organisations, in fact, through their solicitors, send such notification?

Mr. Simon: It is not for me to speak for the motoring organisations, but merely to express a hope that my hon. Friend's suggestion would be adopted.
There is one point which the right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me to deal with, which arose out of the speech of the hon. Member for Enfield, East, relating to Clause 2 of the Bill. He asked whether it would result in a double saving of time. It would, in


fact, result in only a single saving of time. The procedure we envisage for the parking meter offence is that the local authority enforcement officer will take the registered number of the car without necessarily waiting for the driver to come back. Obviously, if he is on duty there, he will sometimes see the driver, but otherwise he will merely take the registration number.
There is, however, power under the Road Traffic Acts to require the owner of a vehicle who can be traced through the register to give information as to the driver. It will be an admission by the driver that he was the driver that is admissible under the Bill. In other words, it will not result necessarily in a saving of time on the part of the enforcement officer, but it will result in a saving of time on the part of the police officer who interviews the driver and who has not, under the procedure in Clause 2, to be called.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I am not quite clear about this. Would it not be possible for the police officer to use this procedure for obtaining the name of the owner, and, through the owner, the name of the driver of the car, without waiting to see him personally? It seems to me that if that procedure can be used in the case of parking meters, it could be used in ordinary parking offences. They are both parking offences and, if the same procedure could be used, there would be a great saving of time.

Mr. Simon: What the hon. Gentleman has in mind, I understand, is that the officer, instead of calling on the driver or on the owner, should write a letter to him. That is a matter which we shall consider. I am not certain whether it comes within the terms of the Bill as at present drawn, but I agree that it is a matter which we could consider. We will look into it.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman, echoing what was said by the hon. Member for Edge Hill, asked about the method of service of the notice of adjournment and of the notice of previous convictions. There is a distinction between those two in the terms of the Bill. So far as previous convictions are concerned, the method of proving service is by certificate that a letter has been posted. So far as an adjournment is concerned, where it is

a matter of bringing an accused man before the court, a higher onus is put, and this is done in accordance with Clause 1 (3), when the court must be satisfied that the parties have had adequate notice.
I hope that I have dealt with the main points about which I have been asked. If I have omitted some, I ask to be excused. We will certainly examine, before the Committee stage, what has been said in the very helpful debate we have had today. I am very grateful for all the comments and suggestions which hon. Members have made.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Standing Committee pursuant to Standing Order No. 38 (Committal of Bills).

HOUSE OF COMMONS DISQUALIFICATION BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 3.—(RESERVE AND AUXILIARY FORCES, ETC.)

Lords Amendment: In page 3, line 31, after "army" insert "marine".

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. J. E. S. Simon): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is a drafting Amendment, the purpose of which is to deal with a lacuna that we left in Clause 3 (2).

Mr. G. R. Mitchison: I am sorry that the Government forgot the Marines, "horse" or otherwise.

Question put and agreed to.

First Schedule.—(OFFENCES DISQUALIFYING FOR MEMBERSHIP.)

Lords Amendment made: In page 14, line 46, leave out "appointed by" and insert "representing".—[Mr. Simon.]

Third Schedule.—(MODIFICATIONS OF THIS ACT IN RELATION TO SENATE AND HOUSE OF COMMONS OF NORTHERN IRELAND.)

Lords Amendment made: In page 24, line 21, leave out "appointed by" and insert "representing".—[Mr. simon.]

Fourth Schedule.—(ENACTMENTS REPEALED.)

Lords Amendments made: In page 28, line 24, at end insert:


"15 &amp; 16 Vict. c. 57.
The Election Commissioners Act, 1852.
In section one, the words 'being Members of Parliament, or'."

In line 52, column three, at beginning insert:




"In section ninety-two, in subsection (2), the words 'is a Member of the Commons House of Parliament, or'."

In page 32, leave out lines 26 and 27—[Mr. Simon.]

Lords Amendment: In page 33, line 46, at end insert:


"5 &amp; 6 Eliz. 2. c. 15.
The Nurses Act, 1957.
In the First Schedule, paragraph 14.




In the Second Schedule, paragraph 7.




In the Third Schedule, paragraph 11.




In the Fourth Schedule, paragraph 11."

Mr. Simon: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said Amendment.
This is also a drafting Amendment.

Mr. Mitchison: Does it come from consolidating the nurses?

Mr. Simon: Mr. Simon indicated assent.

Question put and agreed to.

OCCUPIERS' LIABILITY BILL

Not amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Order for Third Reading read.—[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified.]

8.24 p.m.

The Solicitor-General (Sir Harry Hylton-Foster): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
I am grateful to hon. Members for the interest and careful scrutiny that they have given to the Bill. The worst possible reward for their kindness would be to inflict another speech on them, but I have to say this to the House.
The hon. and learned Member for Leicester, North-East (Sir L. Ungoed-Thomas) and the hon. Member for Edge Hill (Mr. A. J. Irvine) asked me to look again at an assurance which I gave them that the Bill dealt with all the categories of lawful visitors to premises other than the users of a public or private right of way. We have looked at that again with the greatest possible care, and I am glad to say that our assurance is, I am certain, well-founded.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time and passed.

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND BILL

Order for Second Reading read.

8.25 p.m.

The Financial Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. J. Enoch Powell): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
On 7th March last, this House, on the Motion of the hon. Member for Willesden, West (Mr. Viant), passed a Resolution which substantially raised the payments which may be made out of the House of Commons Members' Fund and the maximum incomes of the persons to whom those payments may be made. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had previously indicated, on 22nd February, that if the House of Commons decided so to increase the payments which were made, the Government would


propose to make an annual grant from the Exchequer for the benefit of the Fund.
It is quite clear that its present revenues, derived from the contributions of Members and from the interest thereon, would be inadequate to support the new scales. Accordingly, the Bill, as its main purpose, makes it possible for annual contributions to be paid into the Fund by the Exchequer. It is intended that the annual sum shall be £10,000, but provision is taken in the Bill that by Treasury Order, subject to annulment, that figure can be raised when the state of the Fund, its income and the required payments make that appear desirable.
There is one minor purpose which is covered by the Bill at the desire of the trustees. At present, the trustees have no power to invest moneys in short-term loans to local authorities. At the moment, such short-term loans offer certain advantages over other forms of investment serving the same purpose. Accordingly, the principal Act will be amended by the Bill to make it possible for the Trustees to make loans of that kind.
However, as I say, the main purpose of the Bill, and one with which I feel sure the House will be in agreement, is to enable the payment of a substantial sum in aid of the Fund out of the Exchequer.

8.27 p.m.

Mr. S. P. Viant: On behalf of the trustees of the Fund, I desire to express our appreciation at the manner in which the Government have facilitated the Bill. In addition to the grant, it gives power to the trustees, as the Financial Secretary has said, to engage in short-term investments. This was done at the express desire of the trustees and I wish to record my gratitude for the manner in which the Government have facilitated this.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the whole House.—[Mr. Redmayne.]

Committee Tomorrow.

HOUSE OF COMMONS MEMBERS' FUND [MONEY]

Considered in Committee under Standing Order No. 84 (Money Committees).—[Queen's Recommendation signified.]

[Sir GORDON TOUCHE in the Chair]

Resolved,
That, for the purposes of any Act of the present Sesson to authorise the payment out of moneys provided by Parliament of annual contributions towards the House of Commons Members' Fund, it is expedient to authorise the payment out of such moneys into that Fund of annual contributions not exceeding ten thousand pounds or such higher amount as the Treasury may by order direct.—[Mr. Powell.]

Resolution to be reported Tomorrow.

NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE (OFFICERS' SUPERANNUATION)

8.29 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Health (Mr. J. K. Vaughan-Morgan): I beg to move,
That the Draft National Health Service (Superannuation) (England and Scotland) (Amendment) Regulations, 1957, a cop)' of which was laid before this House on 20th March, be approved.
I can assure the House that the object which these Regulations is intended to achieve is, fortunately, far less complicated than would appear from the Regulations themselves.
The original regulations covering this matter were passed in 1948 and established the principle that when an employee in the National Health Service in England and Wales moved to employment in the National Health Service in Scotland, or vice versa, he would retain the superannuation rights which he had earned in the one country in his new employment in the other.
This established complete inter-changeability between the two National Health Services. Further than that, it is possible in both countries for employees to change between the National Health Service and the local government service, including teaching, without losing their superannuation rights.
This provision for complete interchangeability between the two countries


is a great help to the employees concerned and is thoroughly advantageous to the services concerned in both countries, in so far as it makes interchangeability of staff easier. As I have said, that interchange-ability was secured by the regulations in 1948, which these draft Regulations now seek to amend.
Let me give the House at once the assurance that the position is not, in any point of substance, in any way altered. The sole reason for amending the regulations is that since they were originally made there have been changes both in the local government superannuation law and in the superannuation regulations which govern the National Health Service Superannuation Schemes in England and Scotland. As a result of that we now have to bring the 1948 Regulations up to date.
I do not think that the House will want me to go through every single detail, but the principal Measures which make this change necessary have been the Local Government Superannuation Act, 1953, the Superannuation (Local Government and National Health Service) Interchange Rules of 1955, and the Superannuation (Local Government and National Health Service) (Scotland) Interchange Rules of 1955. It is the purpose of making these Regulations to bring the 1948 regulations up to date without in any way altering the present position of complete interchangeability. They in no way affect the Superannuation Schemes. They are entirely non-controversial, I hope. All the main bodies concerned have already been consulted.

8.33 p.m.

Mr. A. Blenkinsop: We on this side of the House welcome these Regulations. We are very much in favour of interchange-ability. We wish this were possible in private superannuation schemes, as these Regulations make clear that it is possible in public superannuation schemes.

Question put and agreed to.

COAL INDUSTRY (ORGANISATION)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Hughes-Young.]

8.34 p.m.

Mr. Roy Mason: I am very pleased indeed that the opportunity for debate on the Adjournment has arisen tonight rather earlier than usual. I wish to raise an issue which, in my opinion, is one of considerable importance to the cloa mining industry, and which arises out of recommendations of the Fleck Report. When I questioned the Paymaster-General when he was speaking in the debate we had in February on the Annual Report and Statement of Accounts of the National Coal Board for 1955, he said that I should receive a reply from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power, who is to wind up this debate. The hon. and learned Gentleman, in his reply, said:
No doubt in the 1956 Report we shall have information on what the Coal Board has done in implementing the Fleck Report. That will be the right occasion for putting forward the full figures …"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 28th February. 1957; Vol. 565, c. 1522.]
I hope that the hon. and learned Gentleman will not attempt to hide behind that statement this evening, because the 1955 Report was debated in February. 1957, and the 1956 Report may have to wait for debate until 1958.
I further questioned the Paymaster-General, following that debate, about the number of administrative personnel added to the Board since the Fleck recommendations were put into effect. The right hon. Gentleman at that time said that there were 750. Mainly for these reasons. I do not think that I have been presumptious in asking for an Adjournment debate this evening.
I want to draw the Minister's attention to the first page of the Fleck Report, which says that the task of the Advisory Committee on organisation was:
To consider the organisation of the National Coal Board and to make recommendations to the Board.
That is certainly brief and to the point, and is probably the shortest reference on record. The Report, however, produced 61 recommendations, the majority of


which have been accepted by the National Union of Mineworkers and the Board and have been put into effect.
I should also like to draw the Minister's attention to page 2 of the Report, which states:
The industry's age and history and the immense changes inherent in national ownership and single management, have created difficulties unparalleled in any other industry of which we have knowledge. The public is only now beginning to grasp the facts about the industry, and much of the criticism of the Board and their organisation has been ill-informed. We ourselves think that, on the whole, it is remarkable how much has been done since the Board was set up in 1946. In particular the new organisation for managing a thousand pits previously run by eight hundred companies, was planned and brought into being in a matter of months. Those who performed this task did a remarkable job in the face of difficulties that could have been overwhelming.
I appreciate and fully recognise the task that confronted the Board. I was in the industry at the time, and I particularly well remember how stocks were run down at all the individual units six months before vesting day. That, alone, was a severe headache for any new organisation to take over.
Some of the reorganisation was misunderstood. The mineworker, not anticipating the increase in officials, was taken aback when gradually the trickle became a swarm, buzzing in and out of colliery yards like bees, hesitant and uncertain of what they should do. The Board was doing what the private mine-owner never did and could not do. It was looking after the miners' interests, in welfare, health and safety. Safety officers and their staffs were appointed at every unit. There were dust suppression officers, particularly in the South Wales area, training officers, and the large increase in staff which followed to make the training system effective. All this was to the good and very necessary, but I submit now that this new reorganisation may be the last straw.
It will not have the same ring of necessity in its appeal to the miner to understand. Once again he is being asked to receive this addition to the hierarchy for his own benefit, but he, in turn, and quite rightly so, wants the Board to prove to him precisely their task and to what extent the miner, the industry and the nation will benefit. It would be unwise

to disregard the fact that the Report states that the main structure of the Board's organisation is sound, bat it is admitted, however, that there has been a complete failure within the Board's organisation to develop uniform or standarised methods of administration.
On the simple issue of receipts, for example, it is the fact that after ten years of nationalisation practically every area of the National Coal Board uses a different type of receipt. Far too many of the people who were put into responsible positions in the different divisions and areas in the early years of nationalisation were capable only of continuing the methods of organisation that they themselves had operated under the different companies. No lead was given from national level and little from divisional level.
Obviously something had to be done to introduce modern methods. In that situation it was inevitable that the Board had to introduce new blood. However, it seems that it went from the sublime to the ridiculous. It created scores of posts, which will not necessarily lead to greater efficiency in the Board's administration, and filled them by people from private industries, who are absolutely lost. Many of these people have now held those jobs for the best part of twelve months and have not as yet made the slightest impression on the industry.
I could quote examples of cases in which they have come from firms like Lucas's of Birmingham, the Bristol Aeroplane Company, and so on, and are making the most elementary mistakes in day-to-day dealings with the union. When they are challenged, they plead that they are new to the job. The trouble is that they know absolutely nothing about the atmosphere of the coal mining industry. It might be argued that they have been specially brought from outside to bring about a new atmosphere in the industry, but they cannot hope to do that for the simple reason that they have no real authority or scope to introduce new methods.
So many area officials, although receiving salaries of high executives, are in reality mere office boys, except or minor details. Whatever the reason, the fact is that cynicism about promotion prospects has developed to a dangerous level. The Fleck Committee and Board official


after Board official have talked about the need to encourage people to make a career in the industry, but those statements are meaningless when the Board passes over those who have spent years in the industry and brings in someone from outside who, more often than not, has to rely on someone who is more junior to "show him the ropes."
Take the case of a vacancy in the marketing department, concerning the sale of bricks. One person with no little experience in the marketing of all types of bricks applied for the post, but the person who was appointed came from outside the industry and, during the previous seventeen years, had had a sports outfitter's business. How can the Board evade criticism of cases like that? My concern is not only about some of the jobs which are being created, but about the people being appointed to them. We are fast reaching the stage in which experience in coal mining industry will count for absolutely nothing, but if one is a university man, an ex-Service officer, or an ex-police officer, one is in.
That is my first, my most serious and, I think, the main criticism of the Board. I understand that at Hobart House 1,500 people are employed. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to correct me if I am wrong. If that is correct, can the hon. and learned Gentleman tell us what this swarm of people are doing there? Can he imagine the miners' comment on seeing that building so fully occupied, or at least filled, by those 1,500 people? "They are all having to be paid off the pick point."
What of the new invasion of people into the salaries field of machine demonstrators? Starting at a salary of £1,000 a year, they have technicians who are fully conversant with the workings of the machines doing the job for £500 a year. Are those demonstrators really necessary? Three new departments are growing in the Board's organisation—staffing, industrial relations, purchasing and stores. I ask the Minister how many administrative personnel have been added to the Board in those departments? I also ask how many people altogether, including clerks, costing clerks, shorthand typists and so on, have been added to the Board since the recommendations were put into effect.
With reference to the industrial relations department, I would issue a warning. Let not that department be responsible for introducing personnel managers at colliery level, particularly people with no knowledge of the industry, who may act as a barrier between management and men. It has always been understood that the men have direct access to the manager and under-managers when they have a grievance. It would be folly to break that longstanding tradition.
With regard to purchasing and stores, I should like to know whether we have as yet developed a uniform system throughout the whole structure of the Board, and what progress has been made in this respect.
I should like at this stage to quote an interesting letter which I have received indicating that in one area anyway criticisms are just. This relates to tendering for contracts to do colliery work. I did not intend to give a long quotation, but as time is on my sider I think I will read it in full. The letter says:
Further to my conversation with you in relation to my approach to the N.C.B. for opportunity to tender in respect of contracts. I have been to …
two local area offices—
… and am shocked by the treatment which I received and the very obvious lack of business capabilities shown by certain members of the staff at both offices. Upon visiting …
one office—
… in the first instance and asking to see the sales officer, I got no further than an office clerk, who suggested that I should see …
Mr. B—
… the mechanical engineer.
Mr. B—
… was not in but his clerk suggested that I should write giving details of the type of work we were prepared to contract for. I enclose herewith a copy of the letter which I sent. Ten days later, having received no reply, I telephoned …
Mr. B,
… who appeared to have only a faint recollection and suggested that I see the sales officer. I went over to …
the local colliery—
… immediately by car and attempted to obtain an interview with him, but was interviewed by a …


Mr. N,
… who, upon my asking him why we had received no reply to our letter, stated that 'we cannot answer every Tom, Dick and Harry's letters, and in any case you are a London firm.' I pointed out that we were a …
local—
… firm, paying …
local—
… rates and employing …
local—
…labour and that all we were asking was to be given the opportunity to tender for suitable work. When I asked whether we could expect a reply…
Mr. N—
… stated that the matter would be dealt with … In the second instance I approached …
the area office—
… and upon inquiring for the mechanical engineer …
Mr. D—
… I was informed that he was away. I was, however, very well received by the assistant engineer …
Mr. L—
… who appeared very impressed with our capabilities and photographs shown to him. He told me to write in to …
Mr. D—
… giving full details. This I did, and three weeks later having received no reply telephoned …
the area office—
… and asked to speak to …
Mr. D.
I was informed that he was on another line and would I hold on. After waiting for seven minutes I put the receiver down and put another call through to…
the area office.
I was told that …
Mr. D—
… was due back at 3.30 p.m. I then pointed out that I had been told to hold on the line. The position was most unsatisfactory and I decided to go immediately and seek an interview with …
Mr. D.
I met…
Mr. D—
… in his office; it would take too much time to go into all the details of the interview, but in brief this is an account of the interview.
Mr. D:
… said he couldn't answer everybody's letters, appeared to have no recollection of

our letter, hinted that we had no knowledge of their kind of work, suggested that only one company could make the plants, stated that competition was not of any importance, and made it quite plain that he was not interested In view of his attitude I informed…
Mr. D—
… that the only thing I could do was, in the first place, to write to seek an interview should there be no reply to our letter, and then finally to apply to a higher authority. This was not said in anger but purely in a business like manner. There has been no letter received from …
Mr. D—
… in reply to our original one and the matter, I feel, is most unsatisfactory.
Do I take it from that letter that the Board does not allow tendering and does not believe in competition and that a bureaucratic monopoly is developing? Does not the Minister realise how easy it is for dishonest dealing to creep in in such circumstances.
Finally, I should like to draw lo the attention of the Minister Dr. Fleck's personal recommendation which is referred to in paragraph 26 of the Report. It begins:
One of our recommendations is for an immediate re-organisation of the National Board. Dr. Fleck is of opinion that this reorganisation does not go far enough, and he recommends that, after it has been completed, further changes which the law as it stands would not allow and which are at present not wholly desirable because of organisational circumstances, should be made. In his view, these limitations should be removable within two years.
On page 80 the Report states clearly what Dr. Fleck's private recommendation is. It says:
My view, however, is that the Board should be enlarged.…I therefore recommend that the Minister be asked to endeavour to obtain powers to enable him to appoint any number of Members of the Board up to a maximum of eighteen.
Personally, I am against that recommendation. I do not know what the Board's views are, or even what are the views of the National Union of Mine-workers. I am very much against this recommendation being brought forward. According to the Report, this is the time when the Minister should be considering it. The Report was issued in February, 1955, and it is now 1957, so that the Minister will obviously have given it some consideration. I should like, therefore, Jo ask what are his conclusions or that aspect of the matter.
Those are my observations and criticisms of the changes now taking place in the mining industry. I must express on behalf of all mineworkers their grave concern at the ever-growing numbers of National Coal Board officials invading the colliery yards, adding to the increasing burden of administrative costs. I ask the Minister now to try to alleviate their concern.

8.51 p.m.

Mr. William Blyton: I dealt with this matter at some length at the close of a debate on the coal industry some weeks ago, and I followed that up by asking the Minister, in a Question, how many appointments had been made since the implementation of the recommendations of the Fleck Committee's Report. He replied that the number was 750.
I was not in a position to look into that Answer at that time, but I have been surprised by it since, because I am almost sure that at least 750 cost clerks must have been appointed since the appearance of the Fleck Committee's Report. What the number of appointments is in the higher line of command we still have no idea, but we do know that in the area offices, as compared with the number of people employed before, the number employed now shows a considerable increase.
I want to say quite frankly to the Minister that I have no objection to any appointments that are made where the job will increase the output of coal, or will help to save the lives or maintain the health of the men in the pits, but we do not believe, as I said myself in the last debate, that many of these appointments will produce any coal. They are most certainly producing plenty of paper, but are not producing coal.
The Fleck Committee's Report, in the main, is imposing a private industry structure upon our nationalised industry. Any man would be foolish if he did not recognise that there would be problems of management in this industry. I think that that is a challenge to all the people in the industry to face up to the task of building up an organisation based on past experience, rather than putting in as many people in command as we have got today.
I notice that a Director of Reconstruction has been appointed and I now want to speak as one who, like so many of my colleagues, has had practical experience

of mining. Let us look, first, at the managers' position at the colliery. We are now creating a new set-up extending from Hobart House through the districts, under the Director of Reconstruction.
If the manager of a pit, at the same time as he is concerned with the production of coal, has to think about a reconstruction plan, to whom will he be responsible? Will it be the Director of Production, or the Director of Reconstruction? Where will the line of demarcation between those two lines of command be in a pit where there may be £1 million worth of development and where, at the same time, production is being maintained as far as possible? We are puzzled about where a manager will be in a set-up of this character and where the line of demarcation will be for a pit in production and for which, at the same time, there is a reconstruction scheme.
The Fleck Report refers to personnel managers. I strongly urge the Parliamentary Secretary to impress upon the National Coal Board the miners' opposition to personnel managers. Miners regard the appointment of personnel managers as a further barrier between the men's representatives in the trade union and the manager who is responsible for the running of the pit. The Parliamentary Secretary must not forget that it is because there is direct contact between the men's local representatives and the manager around the table that the everyday problems of mining can be solved. If a personnel manager is jammed into that negotiation machinery, so that the manager hides behind a personnel officer, there will be more trouble with pit disputes than there is now, and a solution for disputes will be many times more difficult to settle than at present.
To maintain that long-standing human relationship between the local trade union branch and the manager responsible for the pit I urge the Parliamentary Secretary, whatever may be our criticisms on other matters, not to uphold for one minute the suggestion that collieries should have personnel officers between miners' representatives and managers when there is a dispute.
The Parliamentary Secretary may hear more of this in due course, but I want to say now that there ought to be a committee, composed of members of the


National Union of Mineworkers and the Coal Board, to assess the value of what we are getting from all the appointments which have been made as a result of the Fleck Report in the last 18 months. Sufficient time has now passed for those appointments to be assessed. If we are to clear the suspicion now permeating through men's minds and the minds of the miners' leaders not only at district but at national level, there should be a committee of the two sides of the industry to investigate those appointments.
If the committee proves to the satisfaction of the men themselves that the appointments are necessary, that will be all to the good and will clear away many suspicions in the industry. If it proves the contrary, and shows that the appointments are unnecessary, it will be all to the good that that should have been shown. No matter which way we look at the problem, we have to give the men some satisfaction while they believe that the appointments are unnecessary. We should accept the principle of that committee which I recommended at the end of the debate four weeks ago.
I ask the Parliamentary Secretary seriously to consider what has been said in the Fleck Report. We accepted its proposals in good faith. The Committee was appointed by the Board, which had no option but to implement its proposals. I see no harm in investigating the appointments, the functions and the salaries in these cases. There are many jobs at high salaries which we think are quite unnecessary. It is very necessary to get clear in our minds what we think are the necessary appointments.

9.1 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Power (Mr. David Renton):: The hon. Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) has done a good service by raising this matter. I am glad that we have a bit of time in which to consider it; there is an awful lot to do. It is not the sort of thing one can deal with in a very great hurry.
The hon. Member for Barnsley and the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) raised many matters of detail. I knew that some of them were to be raised, and I hope to give as full information on them as they would wish.

There are some matters on which, I say candidly, I could not answer without notice, but due note will, I have no doubt, be taken of them by the National Coal Board.
It will be within the recollection of the House that the Fleck Report was published in February, 1955, after about two years' work, and that it made no fewer than sixty-one separate recommendations. The National Coal Board has accepted the vast majority of the recommendations, and since February, 1955, when it has had the Report in its hands, it has been steadily acting upon the recommendations which it has accepted. Most of them concern the Board's administration at different levels, rather than questions of production in the pit. We know well in these days that for effective production in the pit we must make sure that organisation on the surface and at the various headquarters, from Hobart House downwards, is effective.
We have to remember also that these are days of scientific development and greatly improved safety. A body like the National Coal Board is now expected to give far more attention to research than was given in the past. These are days of mechanisation and—I hope trade unionists will not forget this—days when there is greater consciousness of what has to be learned in the management of men. All these factors must be borne in mind when considering the Fleck Committee's Report, its recommendations and what has happened by way of implementing them.
On the number of administrative staff the Fleck Committee said something which has been quoted several times in this House and which I am going to be so bold as to quote again. On page 24, paragraph 113, the Report says:
We have considered the criticism that the number of staff is too large. The proportion of staff—40,000 out of a total 'payroll' of about three-quarters of a million—is certainly not too high. Indeed, we believe that the efficient management of the industry requires a higher ratio, as well as a higher average quality.
I should also invite attention to the fact that the Fleck Committee recommended that the headquarters administration of the Board was defective in various respects in that it lacked special departments with responsibility for special


subjects. It recommended, particularly in paragraph 128,
that the Board should create a Staff Department which would be represented at Headquarters, on Divisional Boards and at Areas.
It recommended in paragraph 130
that an Industrial Relations Department should be set up.
Formerly, both those tasks had been looked after by an establishments department which I should tell the House, confirming what the hon. Member said, has now been abolished and has been replaced by separate departments looking after staff on the one hand and industrial personnel on the other hand. Following the Fleck Report, the National Coal Board "has established a new department for stores and purchasing besides setting up various other specialist organisations at the centre with their counterparts all the way down.
I am not disputing for one moment—indeed, it would be contrary to all good sense to dispute—either that there has been a steady increase in numbers of staff or that there ought to have been. As I say, the Board must have the staff to advise it and to carry out its policies, and we must bear in mind what is expected in modern conditions. Perhaps I may seem to be repeating what I said in the recent debate, but we must also bear in mind that in modern conditions the proportion of skilled workers to unskilled workers is bound to rise and the proportion of managerial and technical workers to all manual workers is also bound to rise. We have to look at the increases in staff which I am about to mention in the light of those things.
At the end of 1954 there were 40,000 non-manual staff of all grades and at the end of September, 1956, there were just over 50,000, split up into what we might broadly call officials, including not only executive and administrative staff, but also scientists, engineers and technicians, totalling 18,000, and into 32,000 in the clerical grades. That total of 50,000 is out of a manpower total of about 750,000 and is just about 6½ per cent, of the total.
We must have some yardstick, and I am not afraid to make the comparison with industry as a whole, or at any rate with large-scale and centralised industry as a whole, of which we have plenty in this country today in both the public and the private sectors. I am told that the

proportion of administrative to manual staff in industry as a whole today is nearly 20 per cent. The figure of 6½ per cent. for the National Coal Board is therefore far from being excessive.

Mr. Joseph Slater: I should like this to be clear. The Minister has referred to 50,000 non-manual workers in the industry. Do we take it that the 32,000 in the clerical grades come within that 50,000 non-manual workers?

Mr. Renton: Yes. The 50,000 includes 32,000 in the clerical grades. The remaining 18,000 are made up of officials, as I have described them in a broad way. I believe they are technically described as salaried staff. I understand that the actual figure of the headquarters staff at Hobart House is 1,450. That is small compared with other headquarters. It may interest hon. Members to have their attention invited to a paragraph in a pamphlet, issued by the Board, which has the rather significant title, "Why have Hobart House?" In that pamphlet is contained an address by the late Sir Arthur Street, the first Deputy-Chairman of the National Coal Board. Comparing the size of Hobart House he said—

Mr. Harold Neal: Is this a quotation from Sir Arthur Street?

Mr. Renton: Yes. He states:
For the purpose of comparison, it is interesting to note that one very large industrial combine with headquarters in London and world-wide commitments has a headquarters staff of over 4,000. Another equally renowned for its efficiency and priding itself on the extent to which it is decentralised, has a London staff of 1,750. A famous oil company has 2,000 people at its London office; and so on.
I think it fair, therefore, to make those comparisons and to point out that with all the work which this industry has to do—after all, it is responsible for the whole of our coal production—

Mr. Neal: It is fair to add that Sir Arthur Street was dead before the Fleck Report was issued.

Mr. Renton: Well, at the same time, what he was writing about was considered of sufficient relevance to the affairs of the Board for it to wish to publish the address he gave. He spoke with very great knowledge, and I should have thought there was no reason to doubt the


point which he makes which seems to me perfectly valid. The fact of what happened to Sir Arthur Street certainly does not lessen the argument he used.
When one considers that the coal industry plays such a vital part in the life of this country; that its production is the largest of any European country; that Hobart House, as the headquarters of the industry, is responsible indirectly to Parliament for everything that the industry does; that when hon. Gentlemen opposite nationalised the industry, they purposely imposed on it a centralised structure which inevitably necessitated there being a bureaucratic pyramid with a necessarily large headquarters at the centre; and the pyramid being filled in all the way down until we get to the collieries—when we bear those facts in mind, I do not think the size of the staff at Hobart House is excessive.
I wish next to deal with the question of colliery personnel officers. I realise that the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring who referred to this matter, like other hon. Members who represent mining constituencies—with whatever good reason or lack of reason—has been worried about this. The facts are these. Many collieries have a large labour force of over 2,000 men. Many of those men have personal problems of their own—individual problems, quite apart from the collective problems which give rise to disputes. They have their individual problems relating to pay, conditions of service, welfare, travelling to and from work and a host of other things, and it has been traditional for them to discuss those problems direct with the colliery manager. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] So I have been informed. The right of direct access to the colliery manager has been the subject of pride in the past. Whether it is with the colliery manager or with his deputy, the men have had a right of access to the people responsible for management at the collieries. That is the point.
I am also told—although on my own visits to collieries I have not witnessed this fact myself—that at some of the large collieries, one sees sometimes at the end of a shift a queue of men waiting to see the manager or his deputy to discuss not a collective problem but individual problems of their own. The discussion of these individual problems necessarily

takes up much time, and the manager or his deputy cannot devote enough time to each man's problem to give that personal satisfaction which he would wish to give.
The result is that personnel management as now being practised in the industry is undeveloped by modern standards, and the Fleck Committee drew attention to this and had it in mind. I wish to stress that the manager of a large pit has an immense task to do, and surely he should devote as much of his time as he can to his essential job of securing the maximum output with the maximum safety at the minimum of cost. But if some of these details of man management and of individual problems could be delegated by the colliery manager to somebody else specialising in the matter, as is increasingly the case in other industries, including for example the steel industry, there would be two advantages. First, those problems might be more satisfactorily dealt with, and secondly the colliery manager could get on with his job of production more freely.
I am not suggesting for one moment, however, that the men's traditional right of access to the colliery manager in proper cases and in important matters should be done away with. I am certainly not suggesting that the fears expressed by the hon. Member for Hough-ton-le-Spring about the practice of men who have what one might call a dispute grievance of getting round the table with the colliery manager are at all well founded.

Mr. Blyton: Does not the hon. Gentleman understand that the procedure starts with the man in the pit going to his overman, and if he does not get satisfaction there he goes to the under-manager? Then, if he does not get satisfaction there, he goes to the manager, and if he fails to get satisfaction from the manager, he goes to the lodge and the trade union deals with the matter. Once that man is prevented from going through that procedure, in order to get a manager to deal with his problem, we shall get trouble. The men will not stand it.

Mr. Renton: I am glad the hon. Gentleman made that interruption. What I am trying to do is to confirm that that well-established practice will continue and that the appointment of colliery personnel managers for dealing with individual


problems will not disturb that relationship. That is a fear which I am attempting to set at rest.

Mr. Neal: How can we be sure that he does not infringe it?

Mr. Renton: That is a matter of good will on the part of all concerned. Let us see what has happened so far. The National Coal Board, knowing the sensitivity, especially of the National Union of Mineworkers on this matter—there is no complaint about it—has been going carefully with regard to the appointment of these colliery personnel officers. Very few have been appointed, and those only at the biggest pits. There have not been as many as twenty of them, and my information is that at each of the pits at which they have been appointed except one, the colliery personnel officers have, after an initial stage of difficulty, got the men's confidence and they are doing useful work.
There is no reason why they should not be doing so. It seems that there is a place for them in trying to sort out these many and varied individual problems. There is not the slightest reason why they should infringe upon the well-established practice whereby the men, in the event of a dispute as the hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring indicated, forward the complaint and then, if it is not solved, put the case before the miners' lodge. There need be no interference at all, so far as I can see, with that practice. I hope that I have done something to set aside the fears—indeed, I am sorry to say, the mistrust—which has been felt by some members of the mining community with regard to this matter.

Mr. Neal: Deep concern.

Mr. Renton: I will now answer some of the further detailed points which were made. The hon. Member for Houghton-le-Spring asked me to whom the colliery manager is responsible. The short answer is that the Fleck Committee recommended that the pits themselves should be reorganised into groups, the groups very often corresponding with the sub-areas which existed at the time of the Fleck Report, and that where a group manager has been appointed, the colliery manager is answerable to the group manager. That is the chain of responsibility. Although there are, as the hon.

Gentleman pointed out, and as I think there must be, area production managers and area reconstruction managers, the colliery manager's responsibility is to his group manager. With regard to this matter I invite the attention of hon. Members to the article in "Public Administration" by the Secretary to the National Coal Board, and particularly to pages 7 and 8 of it, where this chain of responsibility is dealt with.
The hon. Member for Barnsley invited my attention to the somewhat more controversial part of the Fleck Report, especially to the addendum by Dr. Fleck himself, at page 80. He pointed out that some two years would be needed to implement that recommendation. He said that he was against the recommendation; he pointed out that the Government have not yet implemented it, and asked me what we were going to do about it. When I tell him that the recommendation would need legislation and that there is no legislation proposed in this Session, which already has a very full programme of legislation, perhaps he can draw his own conclusions about the Government's attitude towards the matter, at any rate as it stands at present.
May I say this in conclusion? I find it somewhat ironical, as I was here at the time that the industry was nationalised, standing at this Dispatch Box and attempting to defend the National Coal Board for having a largely increased number of officials, and defending it especially from attacks made by hon. Members on the other side of the House, who set up the National Coal Board.

Mr. Albert Roberts: Mr. Albert Roberts (Normanton) rose—

Mr. Renton: I am not making a political point. I would simply say that we must, on both sides, face up to the implications of nationalisation itself. We must face up to the fact that here is a full) integrated industry with a centralised structure which is expected to observe the highest standards of safety and to carry out research in that matter. Pneumoconiosis alone, I do not say that it is responsible for hordes of officials, certainly has meant that we have had to get a considerable number of technical personnel into the industry to look after that aspect alone. The Mines and Quarries Act, 1954, in which much higher standards of


safety are enjoined upon the industry, means in turn that the National Coal Board must step up its safety administration.

Mr. Roberts: Of course, the nationalised coal industry is at present highly successful What we fear is this. The very people who fought against it at the beginning, in 1946, and who left the industry, are now trying hard to get back into it. That is why we are suspicious of the Fleck Report and its implications.

Mr. Renton: I find that rather strange in view of the speech of the hon. Member for Barnsley, who was complaining that the people who are coming into the industry have never been in it and know nothing whatever about it. The hon. Member for Normanton (Mr. A. Roberts), on the other hand, said that people who were in the industry and who do know about it are flocking back again, and he is suspicious of them. It is difficult to know how to reply from the Dispatch Box when one has two entirely differing views of that kind coming from the other side of the House.
I was inviting the House to face the implications of nationalisation and all the things which the National Coal Board is obliged to do, obliged partly from the very nature of the task which has been imposed upon it and partly by the development of modern scientific and technical knowledge.
Although my noble Friend the Minister of Power has no authority to interfere with the day-to-day administration of the National Coal Board, and would not, I am sure, wish to do so, nevertheless I am only too glad to be able to put forward these explanations, inadequately though I find I do so. I am sure that the Board itself will take due note of what has been said. Indeed, I propose to ask the Chairman if he will be good enough to write to the hon. Member for Barnsley about several points which were raised, without warning as far as I was concerned, but about which I feel that the hon. Member is entitled to further information.

Mr. Mason: We are concerned about the success of the industry. Concerning the particular question of which the hon. and learned Gentleman was aware and which I raised in debate—that 750 administrative personnel have been added

to the Board—are they executive members or do they include typists, clerks, and so on? If not, how many more people have been added to the Board other than those 750 administrative personnel? What does the hon. and learned Gentleman have to say of the criticism that men with mining experience who have applied for jobs at executive level have been overlooked to allow other people who have no knowledge of it to come in from outside the industry?

Mr. Renton: I have various details of the figures relating to additions to the staff, and in response to the hon. Gentleman I suppose I had better inflict them on the House, but they are pretty detailed figures. I hope the House will bear with me. I think the best thing is to compare the figures at the end of September, 1956, the last date for which I have them available, with those at the end of September, 1955. For engineers and technical staff of all kinds excluding scientists the figures are these: at the end of September, 1955, 9,202; at the end of September 1956, 10,091.
The figures for scientists are: at the end of September, 1955, 2,089; at the end of September, 1956, 2,324. Then there are the others, that is to say, the balance of that total figure of 18,000-odd whom I described as salaried staff or officials, and including all the administrative personnel, including those engaged on finance, marketing, etcetera.

Mr. Mason: What is the salary range?

Mr. Renton: The salary range. I understand, is £750 upwards.

Neal: Relating to all those?

Mr. Renton: I understand so.
The figures for others are these: at the end of September, 1955, 5,259; at the end of September, 1956, 5,756. The totals of these three categories are: at the end of September, 1955, 16,550; at the end of September, 1956. 18.171.

9.32 p.m.

Mr. Joseph Slater: It is not my intention to take up a great deal of the time of the House. I have been most interested in the reply which the Parliamentary Secretary has made to the various questions which have been put by my hon. Friends. When this industry was nationalised it was revolutionised.


Changes were made for these employed in the industry, and they are now enjoying them, but one thing which the Minister and hon. Members generally must never forget is that those in this industry are still interested in it and in the way in which it has to be run.
Concerning the colliery managers, my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring (Mr. Blyton) intervened to ask the hon. and learned Gentleman to whom they are responsible, and the hon. and learned Gentleman replied, "The group managers". I think that if he were to go into the matter a little more closely he would find that the set-up in the industry is entirely different from what he thinks it is. The position created at managerial level is such that a manager does not clearly understand to whom he is responsible. The Parliamentary Secretary referred to the central store department. There have been changes in stores management, compared with the old system as we understood it.
Inquiries were made in the industry before the Fleck Committee was set up, and the further we look into these matters the greater becomes our suspicion.

Investigations were made in the various counties and a committee was set up to make a country-wide examination. I am not aware that a report has been made of what transpired at those investigations. It is the easiest thing in the world to carry a big staff, as is now being carried at Hobart House, and then try to draw a comparison with I.C.I. The comparison can especially not be made when an industry is operating at its own prices while, in mining, there is a control of prices in an extracting industry in which all the development with which we are familiar is taking place.
Before he declares himself satisfied with the recommendations in the Fleck Report, the Minister should give further consideration to the points raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley (Mr. Mason) and my hon. Friend the Member for Houghton-le-Spring. The men in the industry are very suspicious of these new positions and feel that the industry should be freed from what they think is the present overloading.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-four minutes to Ten o'clock.